Conflictoflaws

 

Jurisdiction is a fundamental aspect of Nigerian procedural law. In Nigerian judicial parlance, we have become accustomed to the principle that the issue of jurisdiction can be raised at any time, even at the Nigerian Supreme Court – the highest court of the land – for the first time.[1] The concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws (often called “territorial jurisdiction” by many Nigerian judges) is the most confusing aspect of Nigerian conflict of laws. This is because the decisions are inconsistent and not clear or precise. The purpose of this write up is to briefly highlight the confusion on the concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws through the lens of a very recently reported case (reported last week) of Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Anor. (“Maska”).[2]

In Maska the 1st claimant/respondent instituted an action for summary judgment against the defendant/appellant and the 2nd respondent at the High Court of Katsina State for breach of contract. The 1st claimant/respondent alleged that the defendant/appellant purchased some trucks of maize from the 1st claimant/respondent and promised to pay for it. The 1st claimant/respondent also alleged that the defendant/appellant failed to pay for the goods, which resulted in the present action. It was undisputed that the place of delivery (or performance) was in Kastina State, the 1st claimant/respondent’s place of business, where the defendant/appellant took delivery of the goods. However, the defendant/appellant challenged the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court to hear the case on the basis that the contract in issue was concluded in Yobe State, where  it claimed the cause of action arose, which it argued was outside the jurisdiction of Kastina State. On this basis the defendant/appellant argued that the court of Yobe State had exclusive jurisdiction.

The High Court of Kastina State assumed jurisdiction and rejected the argument of the defendant/appellant. The defendant/appellant appealed but it was not successful. The Court of Appeal held that the concept of territorial jurisdiction for breach of contract is based on any or a combination of the following three factors – (a) where the contract was made (lex loci contractus); (b) where the contract is to be performed (lex loci loci solutions);.and (c) where the defendant resides. In the instant case, the place of performance – particularly the place of delivery – was in Kastina State – so the High Court of Kastina State could assume jurisdiction in this case.[3]

 

Maska adds to the confusion on the concept of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws. In Maska, the focus was on what it labeled as “territorial jurisdiction for breach of contract” in inter-state matters. In international and inter-state matters, Nigerian judges apply at least four approaches in determining whether or not to assume jurisdiction in cases concerned with conflict of laws.

First, some Nigerian judges apply the traditional common law rules on private international law to determine issues of jurisdiction.[4] This approach is based as of right on the residence and/or submission of the defendant to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court. Where the defendant is resident in a foreign country and does not submit to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, then leave of court is required in accordance with the relevant civil procedure rules to bring a foreign defendant before the Nigerian Court. This is all subject to the principle of forum non conveniens – the appropriate forum where the action should be brought in the interest of the parties and the ends of justice. In Maska, the common law approach of private international law was not applied. If it was applied the High Court of Kastina State would not have had jurisdiction as of right because the defendant/appellant was neither resident in Kastina State nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court. In recent times, the common law approach to conflict of laws appears to be witnessing a steady decline among Nigerian appellate judges except for Abiru JCA (a Nigerian Court of Appeal judge) who has vehemently supported this approach by submitting that the concept of territorial jurisdiction in Nigeria is one of the misunderstood concepts of Nigerian conflict of laws.[5]

Second, some Nigerian judges apply choice of venue rules to determine conflict of law rules on jurisdiction.[6] This is wrong. Indeed, some Nigerian judges have rightly held that choice of venue rules are not supposed to be used to determine matters of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws.[7] Choice of venue rules are used to determine which judicial division within a State (in the case of the State High Court) or judicial division within the Nigerian Federation (in the case of the Federal High Court) has jurisdiction. Choice of venue rules are mainly utilised for geographical and administrative convenience. Unfortunately, it appears that in Maska choice of venue rules were utilised to determine the jurisdiction of the Kastina State High Court in matters of conflict of laws. Order 10 rule 3 of the Kastina State High Court Civil Procedure Rules provides that all suits for breach of contract “shall be commenced and determined in the Judicial Division in which such contract ought to have been performed or in which the defendant resides or carries on business.” Although Maska did not explicitly refer to Order 10 rule 3, it referred to some  previous decisions of Nigerian appellate judges that were influenced by choice of venue rules to determine which court has jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws.[8] Maska makes the confusion more problematic because it did not cite the wrong choice of venue rules in question (Order 10 rule 3 of the Kastina State High Court Civil Procedure Rules) but wrongly created the impression that this represents the position on Nigerian conflict of laws on jurisdiction.

Third, some Nigerian judges apply the strict territorial jurisdiction approach.[9] This approach is that a Nigerian court cannot assume jurisdiction where the cause of action arose in one State, or another foreign country. I label this approach as “strict” because my understanding of the Nigerian Supreme Court decisions on this point is that based on constitutional law a Nigerian court is confined to matters that arose within its territory, so that one State High Court cannot assume jurisdiction over a matter that occurs within another territory. This approach is also wrong as it ignores the principles of traditional Nigerian common law conflict of laws. It also leads to injustice and unduly circumscribes the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court, which ultimately makes Nigerian courts inaccessible and unattractive for litigation. Nigerian courts should have jurisdiction as of right once a defendant is resident or submits to the jurisdiction of the Nigerian court. In Maska, even if the strict territorial jurisdiction approach was applied, the Kastina State High Court would probably have jurisdiction because the cause of action for breach of contract arose in Kastina State where the defendant/appellant took delivery of the goods.

Fourth some Nigerian judges apply the mild territorial jurisdiction approach.[10] This approach softens the strict territorial jurisdiction approach. This is an approach that has mainly been applied by the Nigerian Court of Appeal probably as a way of ameliorating the injustice of the strict territorial approach applied in some Nigerian Supreme Court decisions. This approach is that more than one court can have jurisdiction in matters of conflict of laws where the cause of action is connected to such States. With this approach, all the plaintiff needs to do is to tailor its claim to show that the cause of action is also connected to its claim. The danger with this approach is that it can lead to forum shopping and unpredictability – the plaintiff can raise the slightest grounds on why the cause of action is connected with its case to institute the action in any court of the Nigerian federation.  The mild territorial jurisdiction approach was applied in Maska because the Court of Appeal held either the Kastina State High Court or Yobe State High Court could assume jurisdiction as the cause of action was connected with both of them.

 

In conclusion, in very recent times the Nigerian traditional common law principle of conflict of laws (based on English common law conflict of laws without EU influences) on jurisdiction is beginning to witness a steady decline among Nigerian judges and lawyers. The concept of strict territorial jurisdiction, mild territorial jurisdiction, and choice of venue rules appears to be the current norm despite criticism from some Nigerian academics and even a Court of Appeal judge (Justice Abiru).[11] Maska is just another case that demonstrates why the principle of private international law should feature more in the parlance of Nigerian lawyers and judges. I have argued for judicial decisions and academic works in private international law in Africa to be intellectually independent and creative. This means that in Nigeria we should not blindly follow English common law rules. It could be that the common law approach might be an inadequate basis of jurisdiction for Nigerian private international law especially in inter-state matters.  For example in Maska, if the Kastina State High Court had applied the common law private international law rules, it would not have had jurisdiction despite being the place of performance, since the defendant was neither resident nor submitted to the jurisdiction of the court! Should there be a reformulation of the principle of jurisdiction in Nigerian conflict of laws in international and inter-state matters so that it is clear, consistent and predictable? This is a discussion for another day.

 

[1]Madukolu v Nkemdilim ( 1962) 2 SCNLR 341; Drexel Energy and Natural Resources Ltd v Trans International Bank Ltd ( 2008 ) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1119) 388, 424 – 27, 437 – 38 Dangote General Textiles Products Ltd v Hascon Associates (Nig) Ltd ( 2013 ) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 60, 91; B Apugo & Sons Ltd v Orthopaedic Hospitals Management Board ( 2016 ) 13 NWLR 206, 240. In principle, what can be raised for the first time on appeal is procedural jurisdiction and not substantive jurisdiction as prescribed by the Constitution or enabling statute. This is a point that has been stressed by Abiru JCA in recent cases such as Khalid v Ismail ( 2013 ) LPELR-22325 (CA); Alhaji Hassan Khalid v Al-Nasim Travels & Tours Ltd ( 2014 ) LPELR-22331 (CA) 23 – 25 ; Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation v Zaria ( 2014 ) LPELR-22362 (CA) 58 – 60; Obasanjo Farms (Nig) Ltd v Muhammad ( 2016 ) LPELR-40199 (CA).

[2](2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 535.

[3] Attorney General of Yobe State v Maska & Ano (2021) 7 NWLR (Pt. 1776) 535, 548-9.

[4]See generally British Bata Shoe Co v Melikan (1956) SCNLR 321; Nigerian Ports Authority v Panalpina World Transport (Nig) Ltd (1973) 1 ALR Comm 146, 172;  Muhammed v Ajingi  (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA);  Barzasi v Visinoni (1973) NCLR 373.

[5]Muhammed v Ajingi  (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA) 23-5; Foreword to CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (1st edition, Hart, Oxford, 2020); ‘The Concept of Territorial Jurisdiction’ in IO Smith (ed), Law and Developments in Nigeria: Essays in Honour of Alhaji Femi Okunnu, SAN, CON ( Ecowatch Publications (Nig) Ltd , 2004).

[6]See generally the Supreme Court cases of; Dangote General Textiles Products Ltd v Hascon Associates (Nig) Ltd (2013) 16 NWLR (Pt. 1379) 60; First Bank of Nigeria Plc v Kayode Abraham (2008) 18 NWLR (Pt. 1118) 172; Arjay Ltd v Airline Management Support Ltd (2003) 7 NWLR (Pt. 820) 57.

[7]British Bata Shoe Co v Melikian (1956 ) SCNLR 321, 325 – 26, 328; Muhammed v Ajingi (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA);  Zabusky v Israeli Aircraft Industries (2008) 2 NWLR (Pt. 109) 109, 133-6;  Ogunsola v All Nigeria Peoples Party (2003) 9 NWLR (Pt. 826) 462, 480

[8]A.-G. Abia State v. Phoenix Environmental Services Nig. Ltd (2015) LPELR-25702

[9] See the Supreme Court cases of Capital Bancorp Ltd v Shelter Savings and Loans Ltd (2007) 3 NWLR 148; Dairo v Union Bank of Nigeria Plc (2007) 16 NWLR (Pt 1059) 99; Mailantarki v Tongo & Ors (2017) LPELR-42467; Audu v. APC & Ors (2019) LPELR – 48134.

[10]Sarki v Sarki & Ors (2021) LPELR – 52659 (CA).; Onyiaorah v Onyiaorah (2019) LPELR-47092 (CA).

[11]See generally Abiru JCA in Muhammed v Ajingi  (2013) LPELR-20372 (CA) 23 – 25, 25 – 26;  CSA Okoli and RF Oppong, Private International Law in Nigeria (1st edition, Hart, Oxford, 2020) 95-103; AO Yekini, “Comparative Choice of Jurisdiction Rules in Cases having a Foreign Element: are there any Lessons for Nigerian Courts?” (2013) 39 Commonwealth Law Bulletin 333; Bamodu O., “In Personam Jurisdiction: An Overlooked Concept in Recent Nigerian Jurisprudence” (2011) 7 Journal of Private International Law 273.

The Department of Juridical Sciences of the University of Bologna, Ravenna Campus, has organized a Summer School on Transnational Jurisdiction: Current Issues In Civil And Commercial Matters, to be held in Ravenna (and online), on July 19-23, 2021.

The Faculty of the Summer School is composed of experts from different jurisdictions, focusing on several aspects of private international and procedural law. The Director of the School is Prof. Michele Angelo Lupoi, who teaches Civil Procedural Law and European Judicial Cooperation at the University of Bologna. The Summer School is aimed at law students as well as law graduates and law practitioners who want to obtain a specialised knowledge in this complex and fascinating area of International civil procedure. The lectures, if the conditions will make it possible, will be held in a blended way, both
in presence and online.

The pre-registration form and the program of the Summer School may be downloaded from this link.

Registration is open until 2 July 2021. The registration fee is 200,00 €. The Bar Association of Ravenna will grant 20 formative credits to lawyers who participate in the Summer School.

The European Association for Family and Succession Law is organizing an international Conference on Minor’s Right to information in EU civil cases: Improving children’s right to information in cross-border civil cases.

The online Conference will take place via Zoom on Thursday, 17th June 2021 (3.00-6.00 pm CEST) and on Friday, 18th June 2021 (10.00 am-6.00 pm CEST). Here is the full programme of the event. Participation is free, online registration is necessary to receive via email the link to the Zoom meeting. The link will be sent shortly before the conference.

The online Conference will present the main results of the EU co-funded research project “MiRI” (“Minor’s Right to Information in civil actions – Improving children’s right to information in cross-border civil cases”, Justice Programme 2014-2020, JUST-JCOO-AG-2018, GA 831608).

The Latin American Section of the Société de législation comparée, together with the Institute of Public Law of Brasilia, is organizing a series of webinars on the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS, in French Commission internationale de l’état civil (CIEC)). The webinars will take place on 1, 8 and 15 June 2021 at 9 am (Brasilia time), 2 pm (CEST time) in English.

Programme

1st June – Presentation of the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS)

Opening: Pr. Francisco Schertel – Dean of the Law Faculty, IDP and Pr. Maria Rosa Loula – Professor at IDP

Introduction: Mrs. Jeannine Dennewald – President of the ICCS

Developments: Mr. Nicolas Nord – Secretary General of the ICCS and Ms. Camille Reitzer – Deputy Secretary General of the ICCS

Discussions: Mr. Homero Andretta Junior, Director of the International Affairs Department at the Attorney General’s Office

Moderators: Prs. Maria Rosa Loula

June 8 – The normative instruments of the ICCS – circulation of acts and decisions

Introduction: Mr. Nicolas Nord – Secretary General of the ICCS

Developments: Ms. Camille Reitzer – Deputy Secretary General of the ICCS

Discussions:  Mrs. Chloé Hubart – Chloé Falisse and Margot Bruyninckx, representative of the Belgium Federal Justice Service; Mr. Michel Montini – representative of the Swiss Federal Civil Status Office

Moderator: Mrs.  Maria Rosa Loula – Professor at IDP

June 15 – The normative instruments of the ICCS – State cooperation in matters of civil status and harmonization of personal and family law 

Introduction: Mr. Nicolas Nord – Secretary General of the ICCS

Developments: Ms. Camille Reitzer – Deputy Secretary General of the ICCS

Discussions:  Mrs. Nadia de Araujo, Professor at Rio de Janeiro Catholic University ; Mrs. Chloé Falisse and Margot Bruyninckx – representative of the Belgium Federal Justice Service; Representative of the Spanish Ministry of Justice

Moderator: Mrs.  Maria Rosa Loula – Professor at IDP

The event will be livestreamed in English only

Free registration: https://www.idp.edu.br/eventos/the-international-commission-on-civil-status-base-of-international-cooperation-in-the-field-of-civil/

Written by Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa), Yong Pung How Chair Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University

In Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp v Merck KGaA [2021] SGCA 14, a full bench of the Singapore Court of Appeal addressed the limits of transnational issue estoppel in Singapore law, and flagged possible fundamental changes to the common law on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Singapore. The litigation involves multiple parties spread over different jurisdictions. The specific facts involved in the appeal are fairly straightforward, centring on what has been decided in a judgment from the English court, and whether it could be used to raise issue estoppel on the interpretation of a particular term of the contract between the parties. The Court of Appeal affirmed the decision of the High Court that it could. What makes the case interesting are the wide-ranging observations on the operation of issue estoppel from foreign judgments, and more fundamentally on the basis of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the common law of Singapore.

The Court of Appeal affirmed the case law in Singapore that so far have ruled that a foreign judgment is capable of raising issue estoppel in Singapore proceedings. It upheld the uncontroversial requirements that the judgment must first be recognised under the private international law of Singapore, and that there must be identity of issues and parties. It is the first Singapore case, however, to discuss and affirm the need for the foreign judgment to be final and conclusive (under the law of the originating state) not just on the merits, but also on the issue forming the basis of the issue estoppel. The Court also highlighted the caution that needs to be exercised when determining what has actually been conclusively decided under a foreign legal system, especially where the foreign courts operate under different procedural rules.

The Court discussed the outer limits of transnational issue estoppel without reaching a conclusion because they were not in issue on the facts of the case. It accepted that issue estoppel raises a question of lex fori procedure, and that as a starting point, the same principles of issue estoppel apply whether the previous judgment is a local or foreign one. It made a number of important observations on the limitations of transnational issue estoppel. First, it affirmed that issue estoppel from a foreign judgment would not be applicable if: (a) there is a mandatory law of the forum that applies irrespective of the foreign elements of the case and irrespective of any applicable choice of law rules; (b) the issue in question engages the public policy of the forum; or (c) where the issue that is the subject of the estoppel is procedural for the purpose of the conflict of laws. Second, it noted that that transnational issue estoppel should be applied with due consideration of whether the foreign decision is territorially limited in its application. Third, the Court highlighted the possibility that it may not apply issue estoppel to a defendant in circumstances where the defendant did not, and was not reasonably expected to, argue the point, or argue the point fully, in answer to the claim brought against it in the foreign jurisdiction.

Fourth, issue estoppel effect may be denied to a foreign judgment if it conflicts with the public policy of the forum. This last point is generally uncontroversial. However, what is notable in the judgment is that the Court left open the question whether an error made by the foreign court regarding the content or application of Singapore law would provide a defence based on public policy, or as a standalone limitation. As a standalone limitation, it would be inconsistent with the conclusiveness principle in Godard v Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139, as well as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. Thus, it may be that foreign judgments could be reviewed on the merits at least in respect of some types of errors of Singapore law, at least under the common law. Further clarification will be needed on this issue from the Court of Appeal in the future.

Fifth,  the Court discussed the exception to issue estoppel. A distinctive feature of Singapore law on issue estoppel is the rejection of the broadly worded “special circumstances” exception to issue in English common law (Arnold v National Westminster Bank plc [1991] 2 AC 93). Singapore law (The Royal Bank of Scotland NV v TT International Ltd [2015] 5 SLR 1104) has instead a narrow exception based on the satisfaction following cumulative requirements:

(a) the decision said to give rise to issue estoppel must directly affect the future determination of the rights of the litigants;

(b) the decision must be shown to be clearly wrong;

(c) the error in the decision must be shown to have stemmed from the fact that some point of fact or law relevant to the decision was not taken or argued before the court which made that decision and could not reasonably have been taken or argued on that occasion;

(d) there can be no attempt to claw back rights that have accrued pursuant to the erroneous decision or to otherwise undo the effects of that decision; and

(e) it must be shown that great injustice would result if the litigant in question were estopped from putting forward the particular point which is said to be the subject of issue estoppel – in this regard, if the litigant failed to take advantage of an avenue of appeal that was available to him, it will usually not be possible for him to show that the requisite injustice nevertheless exists.

The Court noted the difficulty in applying requirement (b) to a foreign judgment because the principle of conclusiveness (Godard v Gray (1870) LR 6 QB 139) prohibits re-opening the merits of the foreign decision (note that this is potentially challenged above but only in respect of Singapore law matters). It considered four possible approaches to this issue: (1) leave things as they are, with the consequence that foreign judgments may have stronger issue estoppel effect than local judgments; (2) do not apply the conclusiveness principle to issue estoppel; (3) apply the broader “special circumstances” exception to foreign judgments rather than the narrow approach in domestic law; or (4) apply the law of the originating state to the issue whether an exception can be made to issue estoppel. The Court was troubled by all four suggested solutions, and it left the question, to be considered further in a future case which raises the issue squarely.

The Court also endorsed the principle that issue estoppel from a foreign judgment will be defeated by an inconsistent prior foreign judgment or by an inconsistent prior or subsequent local judgment. However, it left open the question whether a foreign judgment obtained after the commencement of local proceedings can be used to raise issue estoppel in the local proceedings. In response to a submission that the foreign judgment should nevertheless be recognised unless there was an abuse of process in the way it was obtained, the Court thought that it was equally plausible to take the view that the commencement of local proceedings could be a defence unless the commencement of local proceedings amounted to an abuse of process.

The most interesting aspects of the decision, with possible far-reaching implications, are two-fold. First, the Court of Appeal cast serious doubt on the obligation theory of the common law and preferred to rest the basis of the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments on “considerations of transnational comity and reciprocal respect among courts of independent jurisdictions”. Second, it left open the question whether reciprocity should be a precondition to the recognition of foreign judgments at common law. A precondition of reciprocity was said to be entirely consistent with the rationale of transnational comity, and with the position under the statutory registration regimes as well as the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements. These two aspects of the decision are discussed in the public lecture, “The Changing Global Landscape for Foreign Judgments”, Yong Pung How Professorship of Law Lecture, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, 6 May 2021 (available here).

by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht Univeristy) and Ekaterina Pannebakker (Leiden University)

1. Introduction

As was briefly announced earlier on this blog, on 29 January 2021, the Dutch Court of Appeal in The Hague ruled in a long-standing litigation launched by four Nigerian farmers and the Dutch Milieudefensie. The Hague Court held Shell Nigeria liable for pollution caused by oil spills that took place in 2004-2007; the UK-Dutch parent company is ordered to install equipment to prevent damage in the future. Though rendered almost four months ago, the case merits discussion of several private international law aspects of the ruling that will perhaps become a milestone in the broader context of liability of parent companies for the actions of their foreign-based subsidiaries. Climate change and related human rights litigation is of increasing importance in private international law. This is also on the radar of the European institutions as is clear from the ongoing review of the Rome II Regulation (point 6). Today, 26 May 2021, another milestone was reached, both for for private international law but for the fight against global climate change, with the historical judgment (English version, Dutch version) by the Hague District Court ordering Shell to reduce Co2 emissions (point 7). This latter case is discussed more at length in today’s blogpost by Matthias Weller.

2. Oil spill in Nigeria and litigation in The Hague courts

As is well-known Shell as well as other multinationals have been extracting oil in Nigeria since a number of decades. Leaking oil pipes have been causing environmental damage in the Niger Delta, and consequently causing damage to health damage and social-economic damage to the local population and farmers. Litigation has been going on in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom for years (see Geert van Calster blog for comments on a recent ruling by the English Supreme Court). At stake in the present case are several oil spills that occurred between 2004-2007 at the underground pipelines and an oil well near the villages Oruma, Goi and Ikot Ada Udo. The spilled oil pollutes agricultural land and water used by the farmers for a living.

Shortly after the oil spills, four Nigerian farmers instituted proceedings in the Netherlands, at the District Court of The Hague. The farmers are supported by the Dutch organization Milieudefensie, which is also a claimant in the procedure. The claimants submit that the land and water, which the Nigerian farmers explored for living, became infertile. They claim compensation for the damage caused by the Shell’s wrongful acts and negligence while extracting oil and maintaining the pipelines and the well. Furthermore, they claim to order Shell to secure better cleaning of the polluted land and to take appropriate measures to prevent oil leaks in the future.

 

The farmers summon both the Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary and the parent company at the Dutch court. To be precise, they institute proceedings against the Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary – Shell Petroleum Development Company of Nigeria Ltd and against the British-Dutch Shell parent companies – Royal Dutch Shell Plc (UK), with office in The Hague; Shell Petroleum N.V. (a Dutch company) and the ‘Shell’ Transport and Trading Company Ltd (a British company). It is this corporate structure that brings the Nigerian farmers to the court in The Hague and paves the way for the jurisdiction of Dutch courts.

3. Jurisdiction of Dutch courts: anchor defendant in the Netherlands and sufficient connection

 Both the first instance court (in 2009) and the court of appeal at The Hague (in appeal in 2015) hold that the Dutch courts have jurisdiction. The 2015 ruling is available in English and contains a detailed motivation of the grounds of jurisdiction of the Dutch courts. See in particular at [3.3] – [3.9].

Claim against Shell parent company/companies. Dutch courts have jurisdiction to hear the claim against Shell Petroleum based on art. 2(1) Brussels I Regulation, as the company has its registered office in the Netherlands. Furthermore, the jurisdiction of Dutch courts to hear the claims against Royal Dutch Shell is based on art. 2(1) in conjunction with art. 60(1) Brussels I Regulation and the jurisdiction over claims to Shell Transport and Trading Company – on art. 6(1) and art. 24 Brussels I Regulation.

Claim against Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary. The jurisdiction of the Dutch courts to hear the claim against Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary is based on art. 2(1) in conjunction with art. 60(1) Brussels I Regulation and on art. 7(1) of the Dutch Code of civil procedure (DCCP). Art. 7(1) deals with multiple defendants. By virtue of art. 7(1) DCCP, if the Dutch court with jurisdiction to hear the claim against one defendant (in this case this is the Royal Dutch Shell), has also the jurisdiction to hear the claims against co-defendant(s), ‘provided the claims against the various defendants are connected to the extent that reasons of efficiency justify a joint hearing’. The jurisdiction on the claim against the so-called ‘anchor defendant’ (for instance, the parent company) can thus carry with itself the jurisdiction on the other, connected, claims against other defendants.

Both the first instance court and the court in appeal found that the claims were sufficiently connected, despite the contentions of Shell. The Shell’s contentions were twofold. First, Shell stated that the claimants abused procedural law, because the claims against Royal Dutch Shall were ‘obviously bound to fail and for that reason could not serve as a basis for jurisdiction as provided in art. 7(1) DCCP’ (at [3.1] in the 2015 ruling). According to Shell, the claim was bound to fail, because the oil leaks were caused by sabotage, in which case Shell would be exempt from liability under the applicable Nigerian law. This contention was dismissed: the claim was not necessarily bound to fail, according to the first instance court. The appellate court added that it was too early to assume that the oil spill was caused by sabotage. Second, Shell contested the jurisdiction of the Dutch courts because the parent companies could not reasonably foresee that they would be summoned in the Netherlands for the claims as the ones in the case. Dismissing this contention the court of appeal at The Hague stated in the 2015 ruling that ‘in the light of (i) the ongoing developments in the field of foreign direct liability claims (cf. the cases instituted in the USA against Shell for the alleged involvement of the company in human rights violations; Bowoto v. Chevron Texaco (09-15641); Kiobel v Royal Dutch Petroleum Co., 133 S. Ct. 1659 (2013), as well as Lubbe v. Cape Plc. [2000] UKHL 41), added to (ii) the many oil spills that occurred annually during the extraction of oil in Nigeria, (iii) the legal actions that have been conducted for many years about this (for over 60 years according to Shell), (iv) the problems these oil spills present to humans and the environment and (v) the increased attention for such problems, it must have been reasonably foreseeable’ for the parent companies taken to court with jurisdiction with regard to Royal Dutch Shell (see the 2015 ruling at [3.6].

4. Application of (substantive) Nigerian law

Substantive law. All claims addressed in the ruling of 29 January 2021 are assessed according to Nigerian law. This is the law of the state where the spill occurred, the ensuing damage occurred and where the Shell’s Nigerian subsidiary (managed and monitored by Shell) has its registered office. The events that are the subject of litigation occurred in 2004-2007 and fall outside the temporal scope of Rome II. Applicable law is defined based on the Dutch conflict of laws rules on torts, namely art. 3(1) and (2) Wet Conflictenrecht Onrechtmatige Daad (see the first instance ruling at [4.10]).

 

Procedural matters. Perhaps because the case of damage to environment as the one in the discussed case, the application of substantive law is strictly tied to the evidence, the court goes on to specify private international law with further finesse. It mentions explicitly that procedural matters are regulated by the Dutch code of civil procedure. In the meantime, the substantive law aspects of the procedure, including the question which sanctions can be imposed, are governed by the lex causae (Nigerian law). The same holds true for substantive law of evidence, including the specific rules on the burden of proof relating to a particular legal relationship. The other, general matters relating to the burden of proof and evidence are regulated by the lex fori, thus the Dutch law of civil procedure (at [3.1]).

5. The ruling of The Hague Court of Appeal

 In its the ruling of 29 January 2021, the Dutch court holds Shell Nigeria liable for damage resulting from the leaks of pipelines in Oruma and Goi. Nigerian law provides for a high threshold of burden of proof that rests on the one who invokes sabotage of the pipelines (in this case, Shell). The fact of sabotage must be (evidenced to be) beyond reasonable doubt. Shell could not provide for such evidence for the pipelines in Oruma and Goi. Furthermore, Shell has not undertaken sufficient steps for the cleaning and limiting environmental damage. Shell Nigeria is therefore liable for the damage caused by the leaks in the pipelines. The amount of the damage to be compensated is still to be decided. The relevant procedure will follow up. The ruling is, however, not limited to this. Shell is also ordered to build at one of the pipelines (the Oruma-pipeline) a Leak Detection System (LDS), so that the future possible leaks could be swiftly noticed and future damage to the environment can be limited. This order is made to Shell Nigeria and to the parent companies.

Spills at Oruma and Goi are are two out of three oil spills. The procedure on the third claim – the procedure regarding the well at Ikot Ada Udo will continue: the reason for the oil spill is not yet clear and the next hearing is scheduled.

6. Human rights litigation and Rome II

This ruling is one in a series of cases where human rights and corporate responsibility are central. Increasingly, it seems, victims of environmental damage and foundations fighting for environmental protection can celebrate victories. In the introduction we mentioned the English Supreme Court ruling in Okpaby v Shell [2021] UKSC 3 of February 2021. In this case the Supreme Court reversed judgments by the Court of Appeal and the High Court in which the claim by Nigerian farmers brought against Shell’s parent company and its subsidiary in Nigeria had been struck out (see also Geert van Calster’s blog, guest post by Robert McCorquodale). Also there is a growing body of doctrinal work on human right violations in other countries, corporate social responsibility, due diligence and the intricacies of private international law, as a quick search on the present blog also indicates. From a European private international law perspective, as also the discussion above shows, the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Rome II Regulation are key. The latter Regulation has been subject of an evaluation study commissioned by the European Commission over the past year, and the final report is expected in the next months. Apart from evaluating ten years of operation of this Regulation, one of the focal points is the question of cross-border corporate violations of human rights. The question is whether the present rules provide an adequate framework for assessing the applicable law in these cases. As discussed in point 5 above, in the Dutch Shell case the court concluded that Nigerian law applied, which may not necessarily be in the best interest of environmental protection. This was based on Dutch conflict rules applicable before the Rome II Regulation became applicable, but Art. 4 Rome II would in essence lead to the same result. For environmental protection, however, Art. 7 Rome II may come to the rescue as it enables victims to make a choice for the law of the country in which the event giving rise to damage occurred instead of having the law of the country in which the damage occurs of Art. 4 applied. In a similar vein, the European Parliament in its draft report with recommendations to the Commission on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability, dated 11 September 2020, proposes to incorporate a general ubiquity rule in art. 6a, enabling a choice of law for victims of business-related human rights violations. In such cases a choice could be made for the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred, or the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile, or, where it does not have a domicile in a Member State, the law of the country where it operates. This draft report, which also addresses the jurisdiction rules under the Brussels Ibis Regulation was briefly discussed on this blog in an earlier blogpost by Jan von Hein.

 

7. Shell and climate continued: The Hague court strikes again

Today, all eyes were on the next move of The Hague District Court in an environmental claim brought against Shell. It concerns a collective action under the (revised) Dutch collective action act (see earlier on this blog by Hoevenaars & Kramer, and extensively Tzankova & Kramer 2021) was brought by Milieudefensie, also on behalf of 17,379 individual claimants and six other foundations (among others Greenpeace). The claim boils down to requesting the court to order Shell to reduce emissions. First, the court extensively deals with the admissibility and representativeness of the claimants as part of the new collective action act. Second, the court assesses the international environmental law, regulation and policy framework, including the UN Climate Convention, the IPCC, UNEP, the Paris Agreement as well as European law and policy and Dutch law and policy.

 

Third, and perhaps most interesting for the readers of this blog, the court assesses the applicable law, as the claim concerns the global activities of Shell. As Weller has highlighted in his blogpost that discussion mostly evolves around Art. 7 Rome II. Milieudefensie pleaded that Art 7 should, pursuant to its choice, lead to the applicability of Dutch law and should this provision not lead to Dutch aw on the basis of Art. 4(1) Rome II. In establishing the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurs states that ‘An important characteristic of the environmental damage and imminent environmental damage in the Netherlands and the Wadden region, as raised in this case, is that every emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anywhere in the world and caused in whatever manner, contributes to this damage and its increase.’ Milieudefensie hold RDS liable in its capacity as policy-setting entity of the Shell group. RDS pleads for a pleads for a restrictive  interpretation and argues that corporate policy is a preparatory act that falls outside the scope of Art. 7 as ‘the mere adoption of a policy does not cause damage’. However, The Hague Court finds this approach too narrow and agrees with the claimants that Dutch law applies on the basis of Art. 7 and that, in so far as the action seeks to protect the interests of Dutch residents, this also leads to the applicability of Dutch law on the basis of Art. 4.

The judgment of the court, and that’s what has been all over the Dutch and international media, is that it orders ‘RDS, both directly and via the companies and legal entities it commonly includes in its consolidated annual accounts and with which it jointly forms the Shell group, to limit or cause to be limited the aggregate annual volume of all CO2 emissions into the atmosphere (Scope 1, 2 and 3) due to the business operations and sold energy-carrying products of the Shell group to such an extent that this volume will have reduced by at least net 45% at end 2030, relative to 2019 levels’.

Undoubtedly, to be continued.

Anniversary! On Tuesday, June 1, 2021, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 11th  monthly virtual workshop in private international law at 11:00-12:30 – one year after the first such session! Since January of this year, we are alternating between English and German language. Tania Domej (Zurich University) will speak, in German, about the topic Cross-Boundary Collective Actions in the EU The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here. This is the eleventh such lecture in the series, after those by Mathias Lehmann in June 2020, Eva-Maria Kieninger in July, Giesela Rühl in September, Anatol Dutta in October, Susanne Gössl in November, Marc-Philippe Weller in December, Macjiej Szpunar in January,  Dagmar Coester-Waltjen in February, Horatia Muir Watt in March, Burkhard Hess in April, and Marta Pertegás Sender in May. On July 6,  we will host Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana University). Stay tuned! If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de

The Rechtbank Den Haag, by judgment of 26 March 2021 – Milieudefensie et al. v. Royal Dutch Shell, ordered RDS, both directly and via the companies and legal entities it commonly includes in its consolidated annual accounts and with which it jointly forms the Shell group, to limit or cause to be limited the aggregate annual volume of all CO2 emissions into the atmosphere due to the business operations and sold energy-carrying products of the Shell group to such an extent that this volume will have reduced by at least net 45% at end 2030, relative to 2019 levels.

This landmark case relies, inter alia, on the following choice of law analysis:

4.3.

Applicable law

4.3.1.Milieudefensie et al. principally make a choice of law within the meaning of Article 7 Rome II35, which according to Milieudefensie et al. leads to the applicability of Dutch law. Insofar as the choice of law of Article 7 Rome II does not lead to the applicability of Dutch law, Milieudefensie et al. claim in the alternative that the applicable law must be determined based on the general rule of Article 4 paragraph 1 Rome II. According to Milieudefensie et al., this general rule also leads to the applicability of Dutch law.

4.3.2.Article 7 Rome II determines that the law applicable to a non-contractual obligation arising out of environmental damage or damage sustained by persons or property as a result of such damage shall be the law determined pursuant to the general rule of Article 4 paragraph 1 Rome II, unless the person seeking compensation for damage chooses to base his or her claim on the law of the country in which the event giving rise to the damage occurred. The parties were right to take as a starting point that climate change, whether dangerous or otherwise, due to CO2 emissions constitutes environmental damage in the sense of Article 7 Rome II. They are divided on the question what should be seen as an ‘event giving rise to the damage’ in the sense of this provision. Milieudefensie et al. allege that this is the corporate policy as determined for the Shell group by RDS in the Netherlands, whereby her choice of law leads to the applicability of Dutch law. RDS asserts that the event giving rise to the damage are the actual CO2 emissions, whereby the choice of law of Milieudefensie et al. leads to the applicability of a myriad of legal systems.

4.3.3.

The choice as laid down in Article 7 Rome II is justified with a reference to Article 1919 TFEU (Article 174 TEC), which prescribes a high level of protection.36 Both Milieudefensie et al. and RDS refer to the handbook by Von Hein. The complete entry for event giving rise to the damage in the sense of Article 7 Rome II reads as follows:

“Where events giving rise to environmental damage occur in several states, it is not possible to invoke the escape clause (Article 4(3 )) in order to concentrate the applicable law with regard to a single act. Thus, the plaintiff may opt for different laws as far as acts by multiple tortfeasors acting in various states are concerned. If, however, an act in country A causes an incident in country B which then leads to an environmental damage in country C, it may be submitted that only the final incident should be characterized as the decisive ‘event’ within the meaning of Article 7. One has to concede that extending the victim’s right to choose the law, of each place of act would considerably undermine legal predictability. On the other hand, such generous approach would fit the favor naturae underlying Article 7. Since the tortfeasor may be sued in country A under Article 7 no. 2 Brussels Ibis, extending the victim’s option will also facilitate proceedings.” 37

4.3.4.

The Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) has made no declaration on the ‘event giving rise to the damage’ in the sense of Article 7 Rome II. The court sees insufficient basis in the interpretation of this provision to seek a link with the CJEU rulings as cited by the parties on other principles of liability, some of which are subject in Rome II to specific choice-of-law rules (intellectual property rights, unlawful competition, and product liability and prospectus liability).38 Nor does the court see a basis to seek a link with the case law cited by RDS, in which it was determined that a purely internal decision cannot be designated as an injurious event.39

The published corporate policy that RDS draws up for the Shell group, which was also discussed with the shareholders, and to which the claims of Milieudefensie et al. pertain, cannot be equated with this. The court also sees insufficient grounds to seek a link with the cases cited by RDS, in which parent companies were called to account for non-intervention in subsidiaries.40 A parallel with the law applicable to a participant in an unlawfully committed act perpetrated in concert (product liability) does not hold water due to the below-mentioned characteristics of the responsibility as regards environmental damage and imminent environmental damage, as raised in this case.

4.3.5.An important characteristic of the environmental damage and imminent environmental damage in the Netherlands and the Wadden region, as raised in this case, is that every emission of CO2 and other greenhouse gases, anywhere in the world and caused in whatever manner, contributes to this damage and its increase. It is not in dispute that the CO2 emissions for which Milieudefensie et al. hold RDS liable occur all over the world and contribute to climate change in the Netherlands and the Wadden region (see also below under 4.4 (2)). These CO2 emissions only cause environmental damage and imminent environmental damage in conjunction with other emissions of CO2 and other greenhouse gases for Dutch residents and the inhabitants of the Wadden region. Not only are CO2 emitters held personally responsible for environmental damage in legal proceedings conducted all over the world, but also other parties that could influence CO2 emissions. The underlying thought is that every contribution towards a reduction of CO2 emissions may be of importance. The court is of the opinion that these distinctive aspects of responsibility for environmental damage and imminent environmental damage must be included in the answer to the question what in this case should be understood as ‘event giving rise to the damage’ in the sense of Article 7 Rome II.

4.3.6.

Milieudefensie et al. hold RDS liable in its capacity as policy-setting entity of the Shell group (see below under 4.4. (1.)). RDS does contest that its corporate policy for the Shell group is of may be of influence on the Shell group’s CO2 emissions. However, RDS pleads for a restricted interpretation of the concept ‘event giving rise to the damage’ in the application of Article 7 Rome II. In its view, its corporate policy is a preparatory act that falls outside the scope of this article because in the opinion of RDS, the mere adoption of a policy does not cause damage.

The court holds that this approach is too narrow, not in line with the characteristics of responsibility for environmental damage and imminent environmental damage nor with the concept of protection underlying the choice of law in Article 7 Rome II. Although Article 7 Rome II refers to an ‘event giving rise to the damage’, i.e. singular, it leaves room for situations in which multiple events giving rise to the damage in multiple countries can be identified, as is characteristic of environmental damage and imminent environmental damage. When applying Article 7 Rome II, RDS’ adoption of the corporate policy of the Shell group therefore constitutes an independent cause of the damage, which may contribute to environmental damage and imminent environmental damage with respect to Dutch residents and the inhabitants of the Wadden region.

4.3.7.Superfluously, the court considers that the conditional choice of law of Milieudefensie et al. is in line with the concept of protection underlying Article 7 Rome II, and that the general rule of Article 4 paragraph 1 Rome II, upheld in Article 7 Rome II, insofar as the class actions seek to protect the interests of the Dutch residents, also leads to the applicability of Dutch law.

The full text of the English version of the judgent is available here.

 

 

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 27 May 2021 at 1 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 8 pm (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is the 25th anniversary of the Mexican Journal of Private International Law, a contribution to the national doctrine (in Spanish). Among the speakers are: Alejandro Ogarrio Ramírez-España, Carlos Novoa Mandujano, Jorge Alberto Silva Silva, José Carlos Fernández Rozas, Eduardo Picand Albónico and Leonel Pereznieto Castro.

This journal may be accessed by clicking here.

The details of the webinar are:

Link:  https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89448167313?pwd=Vi81L2tVZTJRa2NPVzVQQlFrRTNuUT09

Meeting ID: 894 4816 7313

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

written by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar LLM(LSE) PhD(Navarra), Associate Professor KIMEP University (Kazakhstan), n.zambrana@kimep.kz

Some months ago I commented here about an interlocutory ruling of September 2019, issued by the First Instance Court of Palma de Mallorca (Spain). The ruling stayed proceedings commenced by Central Santa Lucía L.C., a US corporation, against Meliá Hotels International S.A., on grounds of sovereign immunity. The court ruled that although the defendant was a Spanish legal entity, the basis of the claim entirely depended on a declaration that the nationalization of the land formerly owned by the claimants’ predecessors in Cuba had been contrary to international law.

In March 2020, the Court of Appeal of Mallorca overturned the abovementioned interlocutory ruling and established the jurisdiction and competence of Spanish courts. The Court of Appeal found that the Cuban state was not a defendant in the proceedings, and neither was Gaviota S.A., a Cuban corporation owned by the Cuban state and the current owner of the expropriated land. Although the Court of Appeal admitted that any right to compensation for the allegedly illicit or unjustified enrichment of Meliá Hotels depended upon the illegality of the nationalization program introduced by Cuban Law 890 of 13 October 1960, the fact remained that the only defendant in the proceedings was a non-sovereign legal entity incorporated in Spain. Meliá Hotels argued that under the UN Convention on Jurisdictional Immunities of States and Their Property of 2004 it was not necessary that the claim be addressed to a foreign state; it was enough that the proceedings were meant to harm the interests, rights or activities of the foreign state. The Court of Appeal was not convinced and insisted that under Spanish Organic Law 16/2015 it was necessary that the proceedings had commenced against a foreign state or that measures had been requested against the property of the foreign state, in enforcement proceedings.

The Court of Appeal discussed several past rulings where Spanish courts had had an opportunity to deal with the effects of the nationalizations which followed the Cuban revolution of 1959. From this series of cases arises the doctrine that even where Spain and Cuba had entered into a lump sum agreement in 1986, whereby Cuba agreed to pay the Spanish Government a fixed amount as compensation for all Spanish nationals affected by the expropriation program, the rights of those Spanish nationals were not extinguished and might be raised again before the present or future Cuban Governments (Supreme Court Ruling of 10 December 2003). Moreover, although Spanish courts could not control the legality of the expropriations, they could indeed assess such legality in so far as it may be necessary to determine their private law effects in Spain (Supreme Court Ruling of 25 September 1992).

The Court of Appeal also disagreed with the Court of First Instance in another respect. The latter had found that, regardless of the issue of sovereign immunity, Spanish courts did not have jurisdiction to hear claims concerning property rights over immovable assets located outside Spain. The Court of Appeal found that EU Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels I) was applicable despite the fact that the asset was situated in Cuba, i.e. outside the territory of the European Union. However, the Court of Appeal found that these proceedings did not have as their object a right in rem in immovable property. Instead, the claimants were exercising a right in personam to obtain monetary compensation. In this regard, the court mentioned that under Article 2 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 (Rome II), the concept of damage includes unjust enrichment. Therefore, Spanish courts had jurisdiction as the defendant corporation was domiciled in Spain.

Months afterwards, Meliá Hotels applied for a new stay of the proceedings, alleging that Central Santa Lucía was not the real successor of the original owners of the land in Cuba but an entity exclusively created for the purposes of obtaining compensation for the Cuban expropriations and that the claim was an attempt to circumvent Council Regulation (EC) No 2271/96, a “blocking statute” protecting against the effects of the extra-territorial application of legislation adopted by a third country. That is, Central Santa Lucía was trying to hide what was actually a claim indirectly based upon the Helms–Burton Act and from which the blocking statute was trying to shield European companies. The First Instance Court found that Central Santa Lucía seemed to have commenced proceedings in the US under the abovementioned US statute but that the current litigation in Spain did not derive from those proceedings nor could have any incidence on them. Furthermore, in the Spanish proceedings the Helms-Burton Act would not be applied and would not be taken into account.

Next, Meliá Hotels applied for a mandatory joinder (litisconsorcio pasivo necesario), requesting that the Cuban State be joined to the proceedings. The Court of First Instance ordered the joinder drawing on its own arguments in the earlier ruling where it had established its lack of jurisdiction on the basis of the sovereign immunity of Cuba. The court indicated that Central Santa Lucía claimed that Meliá Hotels had unjustifiably or illegitimately enriched itself by exploiting the expropriated land and that the examination of the illegality of such expropriation necessarily called for the participation of Cuba in the proceedings because any right of the claimants depended upon a declaration of the Spanish courts that the land was being illegitimately held by Cuba or, rather, by Gaviota S.A. It was wrong, the court seemed to say, to analyse the legitimacy of the acquisition of property without listening to the party who had carried out that act of acquisition. It was also impossible to recognize the original property right of Central Santa Lucía, a right which was in opposition to the present property rights of Cuba, without allowing Cuba to be heard in that respect. For these reasons, not only the State of Cuba but Gaviota S.A. had to be brought in as co-defendants with Meliá Hotels.

Finally, the Court of First Instance issued a new interlocutory decision last 3 May, where it established that it had no jurisdiction to hear the claim because now one of the defendants is a foreign sovereign state. The Office of the Prosecutor was also of the same opinion. The Spanish Ministry of Foreign Affairs had also filed a report indicating that the act of nationalization was an act iure imperii and that the Cuban State enjoyed immunity for that reason. However, the ministry added that any contractual relationships between Meliá Hotels and Gaviota S.A. could be the subject matter of civil proceedings in Spain. The Court of First Instance relied much on its own ruling of September 2019 but it also drew on its own mandatory joinder of November 2020, insisting that any decision of the Spanish courts concerning the right of Central Santa Lucía to be compensated by Meliá Hotels would involve analysing the act of acquisition as well as the property rights of the Cuban State and Gaviota S.A. This was the reason why the latter had been joined and were now co-defendants, one of whom – Cuba – was a foreign sovereign which enjoyed immunity from jurisdiction. Since it was impossible to separate the analysis of the jurisdiction of the Spanish court from that of the claim against Meliá Hotels, the proceedings had to be stayed against all parties. Finally, the Court of First Instance mentioned that although Cuba had not made an appearance in the proceedings after being named as a defendant, that could not be interpreted as tacit submission under Spanish law.

The Court of First Instance does not seem to be aware of the “Catch 22” type of decision it has made. On the one hand the claim could not be heard because Central Santa Lucía had not brought Cuba in as a co-defendant. On the other hand, now the Spanish court does not have jurisdiction precisely because Central Santa Lucía has brought a sovereign defendant into the proceedings, further to the mandate of the same court, at the request of the primary defendants.

The Court of First Instance also seems to have given a lot of weight to the fact that if it decided that the nationalization had been illegal, that would have affected the property rights of Cuba over the nationalized land. This is obviously not the case, precisely because Spain does not have any kind of enforcement jurisdiction over property located in Cuba. As the abovementioned Supreme Court ruling of 25 September 1992 indicated, even if Spanish courts cannot control the legality of the Cuban expropriations, they can indeed draw certain consequences from their illegality, provided that those consequences are of a private law nature and are limited to the Spanish territory.

As it was mentioned in my first post, the Spanish Court also seems to have confused immunity from jurisdiction with the act of state doctrine – which has no place in the Spanish legal system –, mentioning once and again that the acts of nationalization of the Cuban State are protected when, in fact, the only one protected is Cuba itself, but this protection is restricted to certain types of acts.

Although this ruling of 3 May may be appealed, the exiled Cubans are running out of options, especially now that two years have elapsed since the Helms-Burton act was activated without much to show for. Title III lawsuits continue to face legal obstacles and conflicting rulings by US courts. The growing body of case law is, nevertheless, clarifying the conditions concerning the right of action of the claimants, which must be based on their standing and on the knowledge that defendants had about the confiscated nature of the property.

Maybe the best option for the Cuban community in the US is not to hope for a full implementation of the Helms-Burton act but to lobby for a lump-sum agreement between Cuba and the US, similar to the agreement between Cuba and Spain of 1986. The diplomatic opening that commenced with President Obama would have been a good start for that but there are doubts that President Biden wants to push forward in the same direction, given the communist island’s poor human rights record. Still, Venezuela, the oil rich and long standing ally of the Castro brothers is now in a state of such turmoil that Cuba may feel the need to make concessions.

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) have just launched a questionnaire that aims to identify problems of private international law, from jurisdiction to enforcement, relating to disputes involving intellectual property. The questionnaire is adressed to the member states of both organisations and other intergovernmental organisations as well as to individual practitioners, academics and other interested parties. It will inform the future work of both organisations on the intersection between PIL and IP.

The English version of the questionnaire can be found here; further information can be found here and here. Readers of this blog with an expertise and/or interest in IP are warmly invited to participate before the end of the consultation on 30 June 2021.

 

Back in January, we reported about the Opinion presented by AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona in the case CNP, C-913/19. At the request of the Court, the Opinion addressed only the second preliminary question on the branch jurisdiction under the Brussels I bis Regulation. This Thursday the Court delivered its judgment, which answers the second as well as two other (first and third) questions of the referring court, pertaining to the jurisdiction in matters of insurance.

The outline of the factual and legal contexts of the case can be consulted in the previous post. Remarks on the EU legal framework of relevance for the issues raised by the present case were made by Geert Van Calster and they should still be a point of consideration for those wishing to delve thoroughly into these issues.

Factual context in the main proceedings

In brief summary, an owner of a vehicle damaged in a road accident occurred in Poland assigns the claim against a Danish insurer covering, under a motor liability insurance, the liability of the person responsible for the accident to an automobile repair workshop, which provides a replacement vehicle to the assignor. Subsequently, the automobile repair workshop assigns that claim to CNP, a liability limited company established in Poland.

In its attempts to obtain the payment corresponding to the rental amount for the replacement vehicle, CNP is interacting with two companies established in Poland that represent the interests of the insurer in this Member State, namely Polins and Crawford Polska.

Failing to obtain full payment of the rental amount, CNP brings an action against the Danish insurer before a Polish court. The insurer argues that the claim should be rejected due to the lack of jurisdiction of the Polish court. The national court decides to refer three question for a preliminary ruling.

Jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance and assignment of claims

At the outset the Court clarifies that it deems it appropriate to examine together the first and third questions by which, as the Court puts it, the referring courts asked, in essence, whether Article 13(2) the Brussles I bis Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 10 thereof, must be interpreted as precluding jurisdiction being founded independently under Article 7(2) or Article 7(5) of that Regulation in the case of a dispute between, on the one hand, a professional which has acquired a claim originally held by an injured party against a civil liability insurer and, on the other hand, this insurer.

It seems that the referring court invited the Court to examine whether an action can, as to its substance, fall within the scope of the Section 3 (“matters relating to insurance”), yet the applicant bringing that action and being a professional is barred from relying on the rules on jurisdiction of the Section 2 (as an action in matters relating to insurance is covered exclusively by the Section 3), namely on Article 7(2) and (5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

After reminding that an entity that recovers claims from insurance undertakings has to be considered as a professional in insurance sector (paragraph 43), the Court examines whether such professional is barred from relying on Articles 7(2) and (5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and answers this question in the negative (paragraph 46).

On a side note, as previously hinted, in the present case, the claim was first assigned to the repair workshop and then by this repair workshop to CNP. The latter sought to build up upon this particularity an argument in its favour in the proceedings pending before the Polish court.

While the particularity in question, which distinguishes the present case from the case Hofose (where the owner of the damaged vehicle assigned the claim against the insurer directly to the applicant in the main proceedings), is not reflected in the wording of the preliminary questions, the Court does seem to hint it the presentation of these questions (“claim originally held by an injured party”, paragraph 29). However, it seems to be of no relevance as “no special protection is justified where the parties concerned are professionals in the insurance sector, neither of whom may be presumed to be in a weaker position than the other” (paragraph 40). Besides, the request for a preliminary ruling arose out of the proceedings to which the repair workshop is not a party.

Notion of “branch, agency or other establishment”

By its second question, the referring court asked, in essence, whether Crawford Polska must be regarded as being a “branch, agency or other establishment” within the meaning of Article 7(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Against this background, just as AG in his Opinion, the Court had to establish which of the two companies representing the insurer’s interests in Poland (Polins or Crawford Polska) is the relevant entity for the purposes of Article 7(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (see points 53 – 58 of the Opinion). The Court held that referring court is seeking guidance about the scope of this provision in the light of the activity of Crawford Polska, this company had been “instructed by [the insurer] to adjust the claim at issue in the main proceedings” (paragraph 53).

In line with the Opinion, the Court considered that an undertaking which adjusts losses in the context of motor liability insurance in one Member State pursuant to a contract concluded with an insurance undertaking established in another Member State, in the name and on behalf of that undertaking, must be regarded as being a branch, agency or other establishment, within the meaning of that provision, where that undertaking:

• has the appearance of permanency, such as an extension of the insurance undertaking; and
• has a management and is materially equipped to negotiate business with third parties, so that they do not have to deal directly with the insurance undertaking (paragraph 61).

On a side note, in its request for a preliminary ruling, the referring court sought to establish whether the Directive 2009/138/EC on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of Insurance and Reinsurance (Solvency II) may impact the interpretation of the notion of “branch, agency or other establishment” within the meaning of Article 7(5) of the Regulation.

In this regard, the Court notes that the interpretation of the latter must be performed in an independent manner (paragraph 60). The judgment echoes therefore the case law built up upon the judgment in Kainz, C-45/13, paragraph 20 (Brussels I Regulation/Rome II Regulation), and brings to mind in particular the judgment in Pillar Securitisation, C-694/17, paragraph 35 (Lugano II Convention / Directive 2008/48/EC on credit agreements for consumers).

The judgment, which is also the subject of a press release, can be consulted here.

If you want to receive all updates from our blog in real time and discuss them with fellow researchers and professionals, feel free to follow our accounts on Twitter and LinkedIn – where we just reached the milestone of 1,000 followers!
In addition, we also run an old-fashioned e-mail subscription service, to which you can subscribe here.

Posted at the request of Aastha Asthana, Managing Editor, Trade Law and Development

CALL FOR SUBMISSIONS

General Issue

Issue 13.2 | Winter ’21

The Board of Editors of Trade, Law and Development is pleased to invite original, unpublished
manuscripts for publication in the Winter ’21 Issue of the Journal (Vol. 13, No. 2) in the form of
‘Articles’, ‘Notes’, ‘Comments’ and ‘Book Reviews’.

Founded in 2009, the philosophy of Trade, Law and Development has been to generate and sustain a
constructive and democratic debate on emergent issues in international economic law and to serve
as a forum for the discussion and distribution of ideas. Towards these ends, we have published
works by noted scholars such as WTO DDG Yonov F. Agah, Dr. Prof. Ernst Ulrich Petersmann,
Prof. Steve Charnovitz, Prof. Petros Mavroidis, Prof. Mitsuo Matsuhita, Prof. Raj Bhala, Prof. Joel
Trachtman, Gabrielle Marceau, Simon Lester, Prof. Bryan Mercurio, and Prof. M. Sornarajah
among others. TL&D also has the distinction of being ranked the best journal in India across all
fields of law for seven consecutive years by Washington and Lee University, School of Law.

Manuscripts received by August 1st, 2021, pertaining to any area within the purview of international
economic law will be reviewed for publication in the Winter ’21 issue.

Manuscripts may be submitted via e-mail. For further information about the Journal, please
click here. For submission guidelines, please click here.

In case of any queries, please feel free to contact us at: editors[at]tradelawdevelopment[dot]com.

 

LAST DATE FOR SUBMISSIONS: 01 AUGUST, 2021

 

PATRON: P.P. Saxena | ADVISORS: Raj Bhala | Jagdish Bhagwati | B.S. Chimni | Glenn
Wiser | Daniel B. Magraw, Jr. | Vaughan Lowe | Ricardo Ramirez Hernandez | W.
Michael Reisman | M. Sornarajah | FACULTY-IN-CHARGE: Dr. Rosmy Joan | BOARD OF
EDITORS: Amogh Pareek | Sahil Verma | Sukanya Viswanathan| Aastha Asthana|
Abilash Viswanathan| Malaika Shivalkar | Nishant Sharma | Pranav Karwa | Rashmi
John | Swikruti Nayak | Akshita Saxena | Ananya Awasthi | Anushka Mathur | Jahnavi
Srivastava | Khushi Agrawal | Maulik Khurana | Nidhi Lakhotia | Ria Chaudhary |
Yashvi Hora | Aarzoo Gang | Anoushka | Lipika Singla | Priyanshu Shrivastava | Simran
Bherwani | Sneha Naresh | Vipashyana Hilsayan

 Comparative Procedural Law and Justice (CPLJ) is a global project of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, with the support of the Luxembourg National Research Fund (019/13946847), involving more than one hundred scholars from all over the world.

CPLJ is envisioned as a comprehensive study of comparative civil procedural law and civil dispute resolution schemes in the contemporary world. It aims at understanding procedural rules in their cultural context, as well as at highlighting workable approaches to the resolution of civil disputes.

In this framework, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host its 5th CPLJ Webinar on 4 June 2021, 4:00 – 6:15 pm (CET).

The programme reads as follows:

Chairs:  Margaret Woo (Northeastern University and CPLJ Editor) and Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Comparative Procedural Law and CPLJ Editor)

4:00 PM          Ralf Michaels (Max Planck Institute Hamburg for Comparative and International Private Law)

            Decoloniality and Comparative Civil Procedure

4:30 PM          Discussion

5:00 PM          Intermission

5:15 PM          John Haley (University of Washington)

            Historical and Political factors Influencing Dispute Resolution

5:45 PM          Discussion

6:15 PM          End of conference

The full programme is available here.

Participation is free of charge, but registration is required by 1 June 2021 via a short e-mail to events@mpi.lu.

(Image credits:  Rijksmuseum, Amsterdam)

 

The Nigerian Group on Private International Law (“NGPIL”) will hold its inaugural lecture on June 21, 2021 at 6pm CEST and 5pm BST. Registration and attendance online is free. For more information on the programme and registration  see the  NGPIL flyer and the NGPIL inaugural programme.

 

The Organization of American States (OAS) is organizing a virtual forum as noted in the poster above. It will take place on Monday 24 May 2021 at 11 am (Washington USA time). For more information, click here.

This event will be held in Spanish only and is free of charge. The event will also be streamed live via social media networks.

This event follows an important and recent milestone of the OAS in which the Inter-American Juridical Committee completed its 98th Regular Session approving the Principles on Privacy and Protection of Personal Data and Supporting the Hague Principles on the Choice of Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts. Click here for the specific resolution (9 April 2021) and here for general information.

In February 2019, the Inter-American Juridical Committee adopted the “Guide on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts in the Americas.”

The preliminary programme for the TMC Asser Institute Masterclass on investing in English speaking Africa through private international law is now out.

During a two-day masterclass Chukwuma Okoli from the TMC Asser Institute will be joined by experts in the field of private international law such a Dr Pontian Okoli, lecturer in Private International Law and Commercial Law at the University of Stirling, Scotland, Professor Elsabe Schoeman, Dean of the Faculty of Law at the University of Pretoria, South Africa, Richard Frimpong Oppong, Associate Professor a the University of Bradford School of Law, and Anthony Kennedy, Associate Member of Serle Court Chambers in London.

 

These professionals will offer you theoretical and practical insights into commercial law, private international law and transnational litigation. Among other topics, they will discuss the questions of jurisdiction, choice of court agreements, foreign currency obligations, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Knowledge of these topics in English-speaking Africa is essential for effective investment, as the number of international commercial transactions on the continent grows.

 

For more information please visit the event page.

 

Relevance for investment

Africa’s population is approximately one billion people, and its growing population is expected to reach nearly 2.2 trillion dollars in consumer spending by 2030. The recent African Continental Free Trade Area (AfCTA) Agreement seeks to create free movement of persons, goods and services within the African Union. This has accentuated the role of private international law in resolving potential cross-border disputes involving international commercial actors. Lawyers, judges, arbitrators and other stakeholders will have to gain advanced knowledge of the specific operation of private international law in the African context.

 

PO points

Dutch lawyers can obtain 10 PO points for their attendance.

 

About the masterclass series

Lifelong learning is essential for those engaged in today’s legal and business world. The Asser Academy Masterclass series are short courses tailored to professionals who wish to deepen their knowledge, stay up-to-date and remain competitive by mastering skills the global market needs. The Asser Academy Masterclass series will combine the cutting-edge knowledge of academia with the hands-on experience of practitioners.

 

Date: 24 – 25 June 2021

Fee: €995,- €745,-(IJI and Asser clients),- €495,-(Students and NGO-workers)

Venue: Online

Organiser: T.M.C. Asser Instituut

The latest issue of RabelsZ has just been published. It features the following articles:

Horst Eidenmüller: Recht und Ökonomik des Extremsport-Sponsorings in vergleichender Perspektive, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 2, pp. 273-325 (53), DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0002

The Law and Economics of Extreme Sports Sponsoring in Comparative Perspective. – This article investigates the law and economics of extreme sports sponsoring in a comparative perspective. It is based on 40 structured interviews with sponsored athletes from various common law and civil law jurisdictions. The article demonstrates that the current contracting practice is unbalanced and inefficient. It entices athletes to take unreasonably high risks. There are ways to significantly increase the cooperative surplus compared to the status quo. The article further demonstrates that sponsor firms face increased and mandatory duties of care towards young and/or inexperienced athletes. In particular, such athletes should not be influenced by bonus systems in their risk-taking behaviour. The duties of care of a sponsor under contract and/or tort law are also determined by the degree of control exercised by a sponsor and the economic dependence of the athlete on the sponsor. This allows creating a finely tuned regulatory system that, unlike the dichotomy of an independent contractor and dependent worker, is better able to do justice to individual cases.

Arnald J. Kanning: Unification of Commercial Contract Law: The Role of the Dominant Economy, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 2, pp. 326-356 (31), DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0003

This paper is about the unification of commercial contract law. Showing that the legal rules preferred by the “dominant economy” frequently end up in uniform commercial contract laws does not show that those legal rules are inherently superior to any other legal rules. It will be argued that approval of a uniform commercial contract law by the “dominant economy” is the environmental factor that is crucial to its ultimate success, independent of the innate quality of the legal rules preferred by the “dominant economy”. Within the conceptual framework of historical and comparative institutional analysis (HCIA), a study is offered of several well-known attempts to unify (and codify) divergent bodies of commercial contract law in the past two centuries. The argument is not so much that the American UCC Article 2 on Sales greatly influenced the CISG as that United States adoption of the CISG was crucial to its ultimate success, independent of the innate quality of the legal rules preferred by the United States.

Justus Meyer: Die praktische Bedeutung des UN-Kaufrechts in Deutschland, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 2, pp. 357-401 (45), DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0004

The Practical Significance of the CISG in Germany. – The UN Sales Law is in different respects a clear success: worldwide, reforms of contract law are oriented towards the CISG. In September 2020 Portugal became the 94th contracting state. The importance of international trade in goods is steadily increasing. However, there is still uncertainty about the acceptance of UN sales law by internationally operating companies and their legal advisors. The present study is based on a survey of 554 attorneys in Germany and compares the answers with results from 2004 as well as from Austria and Switzerland. According to this survey, the international sales contracts heard by courts and arbitrators are predominantly not subject to UN sales law and the proportion of those who regularly use a choice-of-law clause with CISG exclusion has even risen from 42.2 to 52.9 % since 2004. In Austria and Switzerland this proportion has also risen and is even higher than in Germany. Many lawyers are well aware of the advantages of a neutral legal regime. However, it seems to be easier for them to recommend choice-of-law clauses that exclusively invoke domestic law.

Krzysztof Riedl: Natural Obligations in Comparative Perspective, Volume 85 (2021) / Issue 2, pp. 402-433 (32), DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2021-0005

A natural obligation (obligatio naturalis) is a legal construction whose roots stretch back to Roman law. This common source means that we will find similar solutions in legal systems descended from Roman legal culture – with respect to both the understanding of natural obligations and specific instances where they arise. The aim of this paper is to answer the question of whether these different systems define natural obligations in the same manner or whether the natural obligations encountered in these systems are distinct legal institutions sharing only a common name. In this paper, the various approaches of contemporary legal systems to this issue are characterized. Then, a comparative-law analysis focuses on three fundamental aspects of natural obligations: their legal construction (definition), a catalogue of instances, and their legal effectiveness. Under the constructional perspective, two basic models of obligatio naturalis are distinguished and discussed – the obligative model and the causal model – and it is around these two models which the particular conceptions converge. The analysis presented in the paper demonstrates that the similarities between the various models outweigh the differences. This permits us to refer to obligatio naturalis as a universal legal construction.

The Conference “the Office of the Judge and the Conflict-of-Law Rule” (L’office du juge et la règle de conflit de lois) will be held on Monday 17 May 2021 (in French) and will be streamed live via the Cour de cassation website and social media networks.

This Conference is part of the Lecture Series “Thinking about the office of the judge” (Penser l’office du juge) – 2020-2021 (directed by Sylvie Perdriolle, Honorary President of the Chamber, Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Judge at the French Cour de cassation, and Lukas Rass-Masson, professor at the University of Toulouse 1 Capitole).

The programme is as follows:

5:00 p.m. – The Office of the Judge and the Nature of the Conflict-of-Law Rule
Nicolas Nord, Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status, Co-chairman of the China Section of the Société de législation comparée
Gian Paolo Romano, Professor at the University of Geneva, Co-director of the Yearbook of International Private Law

5:40 p.m. – The Office of the Judge and the European Conflict-of-Law Rule
Lukas Rass-Masson, Professor at the University of Toulouse I Capitole, Director of the European School of Law Toulouse

6:05 p.m. – The Office of the Judge and the Application of the Conflict-of-Law Rule
François Mélin, Judge at the Court of Appeal of Paris

18:30 p.m. – Discussion

Moderators:
François Ancel, President of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal
Gustavo Cerqueira, Professor at the University of Nîmes, France