Conflictoflaws

Written by Yannick Morath

Yannick Morath, doctoral candidate at the University of Freiburg, has kindly provided us with his thoughts on the CJEU’s judgement in the case of LG and Others v Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale (C-641/18 – ECLI:EU:C:2020:349)

(See also the earlier post by Matthias Weller concerning the CJEU’s judgement).

1. Introduction

Private-law classification and certification societies play a vital role in modern economies. Especially in the maritime sector, external auditors issue certificates dealing with public tasks such as the seaworthiness and safety of vessels. Not only their contractual partners but also third parties rely on the accuracy of such certificates. Due to cross-border mobility of certificates and certified items, issues of Private International Law have to be taken into account when dealing with a certifiers’ liability.

When not applying the appropriate level of care, classification and certification agencies can – according to the CJEU – be sued in the courts of the Member State where the agency is seated. By finding this ruling, the CJEU had to deal with two interesting questions: Firstly, it had to establish whether an action for damages, brought against private certifiers falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, and therefore, within the scope of the Regulation 44/2001 (Brussels I). Secondly, the CJEU had to examine the legitimacy of the certifier’s plea based on the principle of customary international law concerning immunity from state jurisdiction.

2. Facts of the ‘Rina-case’

In 2006, the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98, a ship sailing under the flag of the Republic of Panama, sunk in the Red Sea, tragically causing the loss of more than 1,000 lives. Relatives of the victims and survivors have brought an action under Italian law before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) against two private law corporations (the Rina companies), that are seated in Genoa and were responsible for the classification and certification of the ship.

The applicants argue that the defendants’ operations, carried out under a contract concluded with the Republic of Panama, are to blame for the ship’s lack of stability and its lack of safety at sea, which are the causes of its sinking. Therefore, they claim compensation from the Rina companies for the losses they suffered.

The Rina companies counter that the referring court lacks jurisdiction, relying on the international-law principle of immunity from jurisdiction of foreign States. They state that they are being sued in respect of activities, which they carried out as delegates of the Republic of Panama. The activities in question were a manifestation of the sovereign power of a foreign State and the defendants carried them out on behalf of and in the interests of that State.

The applicants, however, argue in favour of the case’s civil law nature, within the meaning of Article 1 (1) of Regulation 44/2001. As the Rina companies are seated in Genoa, the Italian courts should have jurisdiction under Article 2 (1) of that regulation. They submit that the plea of immunity from jurisdiction does not cover activities that are governed by non-discretionary technical rules, which are, in any event, unrelated to the political decisions and prerogatives of a State.

The Tribunale di Genova decided to stay the proceedings and consult the CJEU for further clarification under Article 267 TFEU.

3. Background: The dual role of classification and certification societies

When dealing with the classification and certification of ships it is important to be aware of the dual role private-law societies play in this area. Traditionally they are hired by a shipowner to attest that a ship is built in accordance with the standards of a specific ship class. Those ‘class rules’ are developed by the classification societies themselves. The maritime industry depends on these services, as the classification of a ship is necessary to evaluate its insurability and marketability. Therefore, these voluntary classifications are mainly prompted by private interest. This is referred to as the ‘private function’ of classification.

On the other hand, the same societies fulfil a ‘public function’ as well. Under international maritime law, states have a duty to take appropriate measures for ships flying under their flag to ensure safety at sea (Article 94 (3) of the United Nations Convention of the Law of the Sea). For this purpose ships have to be surveyed by a qualified personnel to make sure it meets all relevant safety and environmental standards. Flag states can perform these tasks themselves; however, most of them delegate executive powers to classification societies. Pursuant to Article 3 (2) of Directive 2009/15 this is also possible under EU law. When executing these powers classification agencies are subject to two contracts: The first one is the agreement on the delegation of powers with the flag state, the second contract is the actual certification agreement with the owner of the ship that is about to be surveyed. Whereas shipowners are free to choose one of the recognized classification societies, the certification itself is compulsory.

It must be noted that the classification according to class rules (private function) is a prerequisite for the statutory inspection and certification (public function). In the case at hand, the Rina companies were responsible for both aspects. They classified the ship in accordance with their class rules and then issued the statutory certificate on behalf of and upon delegation from the Republic of Panama. This public law background caused the need for clarification by the CJEU.

4. The CJEU on the interpretation of ‘civil and commercial matters’

Under Article 1(1) of Regulation 44/2001, the scope of that regulation is limited to ‘civil and commercial matters’. It does not extend, in particular, to revenue, customs or administrative matters. In order to ascertain whether Italian courts have jurisdiction pursuant to Article 2 (1) of that regulation it is necessary to interpret the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’. This concept is subject to an autonomous European interpretation. By determining whether a matter falls within the scope of the Regulation, the nature of the legal relationships between the parties to the dispute is crucial. It must be noted that the mere fact that one of the parties might be a public authority does not exclude the case from the scope of the Regulation. It is, however, essential whether the party exercises public powers (acta iure imperii). These powers are ‘falling outside the scope of the ordinary legal rules applicable to relationships between private individuals’ (para. 34).

Following the Advocate General’s opinion and the CJEU’s judgement in Pula Parking (C-551/15 – ECLI:EU:C:2017:193), the Court notes that ‘it is irrelevant that certain activities were carried out upon delegation from a State’ (para. 39). The fact that the operations were carried out on behalf of and in the interest of the Republic of Panama and that they fulfil a public purpose, do not, in themselves, ‘constitute sufficient evidence to classify them as being carried out iure imperii’ (para. 41.).

In fact it must be taken into account that ‘the classification and certification operations were carried out for remuneration under a commercial contract governed by private law concluded directly with the shipowner of the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98’ (para. 45). Moreover, it is the responsibility of the flag state to interpret and choose the applicable technical requirements for the certification necessary to fly their flag.

The CJEU continues to examine the agency’s decision-making power. If the agency decides to withdraw a certificate, the respective ship is no longer able to sail. It argues, however, that this effect does not originate from the decision of the agency but rather from the sanction which is imposed by law (para. 47). The role of the certifier simply ‘consists in conducting checks of the ship in accordance with the requirements laid down by the applicable legislative provisions.’ As it is for the States to fix those provisions, it is ultimately their power to decide on a ship’s permission to sail.

Whereas the general remarks on the interpretation of ‘civil and commercial matters’ are convincing and based on settled case law, the findings about the ‘decision making power’ of recognised organisations give rise to further questions. If a ship does not comply with the relevant requirements, the statutory certificate must not be issued and the shipowner is not allowed to sail under the flag of the respective state. Even though this legal consequence is finally imposed by law, it is the certifier’s application of that law that leads to this effect. Whenever a certification agency refuses to issue a certificate, the ship is initially not able to sail. The CJEU’s technical perspective in paragraph 47 does not sufficiently appreciate the factual decision making of the certifier. The judgement does unfortunately not explicitly address the issue of legal discretion and its consequences on the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’.

However, there are other grounds to qualify the case a ‘civil matter’. As the CJEU pointed out as well, it follows from Regulation 6 (c) and (d) of Chapter I of the International Convention for the Safety of Life at Sea, that the final responsibility is allocated to the flag state (para. 48). Therefore, the state is subject to far-reaching supervisory duties. Even though this is not expressively regulated by international or EU law, it appears like the flag state can at any time overrule an agency’s decision to issue or withdraw the certificate. This would result in a limitation to the finality of the agency’s powers and prepare the ground for a civil law qualification. Some further remarks by the CJEU about this aspect would have been interesting.

5. The CJEU on state immunity from jurisdiction

Doubts regarding the jurisdiction of the Italian courts arose from the Rina companies’ plea based on the principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction. Pursuant to the principle par in parem non habet imperium, a State cannot be subjected to the jurisdiction of another State. ‘However, in the present state of international law, that immunity is not absolute, but is generally recognised where the dispute concerns sovereign acts performed iure imperii. By contrast, it may be excluded if the legal proceedings relate to acts which do not fall within the exercise of public powers’ (para. 56).

The CJEU held that this principle does not preclude the application of the Regulation in this case, although it is the referring court that has to examine whether the Rina companies had recourse to public powers within in the meaning of international law. It must be noted that a rule of customary international law will only exist where a given practice actually exists that is supported by a firm legal view (opinio iuris). Following the Advocate General, the CJEU finds that the case-law cited by the defendants ‘does not support the unequivocal conclusion that a body carrying out classification and certification operations may rely on immunity from jurisdiction in circumstances such as those of the present case` (c.f. para. 109 of his opinion).

In regard of state immunity, the CJEU changes its perspective on the case. Whereas the interpretation of ‘civil and commercial matters’ was driven by EU law, the doctrine of state immunity requires a different methodological approach, as it originates from international law. Nevertheless, the CJEU’s overall convincing remarks are in line with its earlier findings, setting a high bar for statutory certification societies to plead for state immunity.

6. Final remarks

The CJEU established legal security for the victims of maritime disasters such as the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio ’98. The judgement indirectly clarified the applicability of the Brussels I Regulation in cases where maritime certifiers operate only in their private function. When statutory certifications are a civil matter, this must a fortiori be the case for voluntary classifications. Having consistent results when establishing jurisdiction in such cases, also meets with the principle of foreseeability. The remarks on the applicability of the Brussels I regulation are also of significant relevance when dealing with the Brussels Ibis and the Rome I and II Regulations, as all of them apply the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’.

Moreover, the judgement underlines the responsibility of private-law certifiers and recognises their vital role as regulators that operate in the public interest. Even though the CJEU’ findings on the interpretation of ‘civil matters’ are consistent with its earlier developed broad understanding of the concept, further clarification regarding privatised decision making powers would have been desirable.

Written by Oliver Dörr, University of Osnabrück

Note: This blogpost is part of a series on „Corporate social responsibility and international law“ that presents the main findings of the contributions published in August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020.

I. Companies – responsibility

1. As for commercial entities, international law is concerned, above all, with transnational or multinational companies. The term basically describes the conglomerate of commercial entities that are acting separately in at least two different countries and which are tied together by a regime of hierarchical coordination.

2. In times of „global governance“ the international legal concept of responsibility is undergoing a process of de-formalization and, thus, encompasses the violation of social behavioural expectations, which for companies may result from international standards that are not legally binding. The resulting responsibility is a legal one insofar as the law adopts those standards and attaches negative consequences to their violation.

II. Private persons and the law of international responsibility

3. Private companies may be held responsible under international law to the extent that they are either themselves bound by primary legal obligations (direct responsibility), or their business activities are regulated by States which, in doing so, are fulfilling their own international legal obligations (indirect responsibility). A State may just as well impose such regulation without actually being under an obligation to do so (e.g. the US Alien Tort Statute).

Private persons as subjects of international legal obligations

4. Private persons being themselves bound by international legal obligations pertain to the process of de-medatization, which established the legal personality of the individual under international law.

5. Sovereign States can, by concluding international treaties, create legal obligations for private persons, including private companies, directly under international law. The personal scope of this comprehensive law-creating power of States is delimitated by their personal jurisdiction under international law. Whether an individual treaty itself gives rise to legal obligations for private persons, is, just as the creation of individual rights, a matter of treaty interpretation.

6. Genuine legal obligations have evolved for private persons under international criminal law: Here, detailed primary obligations of private persons have developed that are linked to a specific regime of individual responsibility, in particular under the Statute of the International Criminal Court.

7. In contrast, the extension of international human rights obligations to apply directly between private persons is not yet part of the international lex lata. Individual texts pointing in that direction (such as art. 29 para. 1 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) are merely of a programmatic nature.

8. Genuine international legal obligations of companies can today be found in the rules regulating deep sea-bed activities (arts. 137, 153 para. 2 UN Convention on the Law of the Sea) and in various treaties establishing regimes of civil liability.

9. Obligations of private persons under international law, including those having direct effect within UN Member States, may also be created by the UN Security Council through resolutions under arts. 39, 41 of the UN Charter.

10. It is fairly uncertain whether the initiative, currently being undertaken within the UN Human Rights Council, to adopt a „legally binding instrument“ encompassing direct human rights liability of private companies, will ever have a chance of becoming binding law.

11. To the extent that there actually are primary obligations of private persons under international law, a general principle of law requires their violation to result in a duty to make reparation. Only in exceptional circumstances could the rules of State responsibility be transferred to private persons.

Obligations to establish the responsibility of private persons

12. An indirect responsibility under international law applies to undertakings via the international legal obligation of States to criminalize certain activities, e.g. in respect of waste disposal, bribery in foreign countries, organized crime and corruption.

Responsibility of private persons under autonomous national law

13. Provisions in national law that autonomously sanction private acts for international law violations bridge with their own binding effect the fact that the private person is not itself bound by the international legal norm.

14. The French Law No. 399-2017 on the plan de vigilance is far too general and vague to serve as an example for an (indirect) international legal reporting responsibility. The same applies to the CSR directive of the European Union of 2014.

III. Responsibility on the basis of non-binding rules of conduct

Behavioural governance without legally binding effects

15. The values contained in certain international law principles shape some social behavioural expectations that are summarized today in concepts of corporate social responsibility (CSR). As a matter of substance, those expectations relate to human rights, the environment, conditions of labour and fighting corruption.

Processes of rule-making

16. The discussion is mainly focused on certain international, cross-sector corporate codes of conduct, such as the OECD Guidelines for Multinational Enterprises (1976), die ILO Tripartite Declaration of Principles concerning Multinational Enterprises and Social Policy (1977), the UN Global Compact (2000) and the UN Guiding Principles on Business and Human Rights (2011).

17. In particular, with regard to human rights and environment, those rules are extremely unspecific, which means that here, law merely serves as a backdrop in order to endow social behavioural expectations with moral authority.

Responsibility by reception

18. In order to adopt and implement those business-related standards, basically all instruments of law-making and application can be used, as long as they impose normative requirements on companies and their activities. Legal certainty standards under the rule of law, as well as the rules of international law on the jurisdiction of States, can limit the reception.

19. Non-binding standards could be implemented, for example, via the legal regimes of State aid (in particular with respect to export finance), public procurement, investment protection and the rules on civil liability. So far, however, the international standards on business conduct are rarely being implemented in a legally binding manner.

IV. Conclusion

20. If the distinction of law and non-law is to be maintained, responsibility of companies in international law is a theoretical possibility, but of little practical relevance: Only in very specific circumstances are private companies themselves subjected to international legal obligations; moreover, it is similarly rare that „soft“ international standards of conduct are being adopted by „hard“ law and thereby made into specific legal duties of companies.

21. Behavioural standards that determine the international debate on CSR assign a mere „backdrop function“ to the law, as they neither identify concretely the international legal norms referred to, nor differentiate them properly. In that context, companies are simply required to publicly declare their commitment to „the good cause“, which results in duties to take precautionary measures, to exercise transparency and to publish reports.

22. That is why environmental protection, human rights etc. in relation to the activities of private companies is still mainly the responsibility of States. Tools that exist in international law in this respect, such as the rules of attribution or protective duties, must be adapted and enhanced, in order to achieve adequate solutions for detrimental business conduct on the basis of State responsibility.

 

Full (German) version: Oliver Dörr, Unternehmensverantwortlichkeit im Völkerrecht, in: August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020, pp. 133 et seq.

 

Gathering (or rather e-gathering) professors and researchers from Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Mexico, Spain, and Portugal, a series of webinars is taking place from today until 22 May, under the general topic of PIL and Covid-19: Mobility, Commerce and Challenges in the Global Order.

Subtopics are:

I – PIL, International Institutions and Global Governance in times of Covid-19

II – Protecting persons in mobility and Covid-19: Human Rights, Families, Migrants, and Consumers

III – International Commerce and Covid-19: Global Supply Chains, Civil Aviation, Technologies & Labor

Full programme and more information: here.

The first issue of 2020 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Antonietta Di Blase, Professor at the University of Roma Tre, Sull’interpretazione delle convenzioni e delle norme dell’Unione europea in materia di diritto internazionale privato (‘On the Interpretation of the European Private International Law Conventions and Provisions’; in Italian)

• The paper provides an overview of the practice of international and national Courts relating to the interpretation of private international law conventions and EU rules, where uniform approach and autonomy from the national legal orders of Member States are construed as fundamental criteria. Some elements, especially drawn from the Court and the Italian practice, makes it evident that the national judicial organs have substantially endorsed the interpretation by the Court of Justice of the EU of the acts adopted within the framework of the judicial cooperation in civil matters. Possible gaps in EU rules could be overcome through interpretation – in keeping with the main human rights principles – taking into account that sometimes the legislation in force in the Member States follow a different approach, as in the case of family law. Finally, the paper addresses problems connected to the interpretation of conventions with Third States, also taking into account the consequences of the UK’s exit from the European Union.

Gilles Cuniberti, Professor at the University of Luxembourg, Signalling the Enforceability of the Forum’s Judgments Abroad (in English)

• The aim of this article is to document and assess the efforts made by international commercial courts to signal the enforceability of their judgments abroad. To that effect, three strategies were developed. The first and most obvious one was to enter into agreements providing for the mutual enforcement of judgments of contracting States which could serve the same function as the 1958 New York Convention for arbitral awards. Yet, as the 2005 Hague Convention has a limited scope and the 2019 Hague Convention is not yet in force, alternative strategies were identified. Several international commercial courts are actively pursuing the conclusion of non-binding documents with other courts or even law firms suggesting that the judgments of the forum would be enforced by the courts of other States. Finally, one international court has also explored how it could convert its judgments into arbitral awards.

Laura Baccaglini, Associate Professor at the University of Trento, L’esecuzione transfrontaliera delle decisioni nel regolamento (UE) 2015/848 (‘Cross-Border Enforcement of Decisions Pursuant to (EU) Regulation 2015/848’; in Italian)

• This paper addresses the cross-border enforcement of insolvency decisions in Europe. Notably, it examines how the claims brought in the interest of an insolvency proceeding opened in one Member State can be pursued in other Member States. The topic refers to EU Regulation 848/2015 that, as of 26 June 2017, replaced EC Regulation No 1346/2000 without introducing any significant new features as regards the circulation of such judgments, which remain subject to a system of automatic recognition. The reference made by such Regulation to Regulation No 1215/2012 makes the enforcement of those judgments equally automatic, without the need for prior exequatur by the court of the State addressed but only requiring the delivery of a certificate of enforceability by the court of the State of origin. The problem is examined by taking the liquidation procedure as a model, assuming that it was opened in a Member State other than Italy, where the insolvency practitioner needs to recover assets that have been disposed of by the debtor, after the opening of the procedure. The question is addressed as to how the insolvency practitioner can prevent the continuation of individual enforcement proceedings still pending and whether he can intervene to have the assets liquidated, withholding the proceeds. More generally, the problem arises as to which rules govern the liquidation of assets located in Italy and belonging to the debtor. In all these cases, the issue is whether the foreign judgment should be enforced and, if so, how it should be enforced.

The following comment is also featured:

Giovanna Adinolfi, Professor at the University of Milan, L’accordo di libero scambio tra l’Unione europea e la Repubblica di Singapore tra tradizione e innovazione (‘The Free Trade Agreement between the European Union and the Republic of Singapore between Tradition and Innovation’; in Italian)

• The Free Trade Agreement (FTA) with Singapore entered into force on 21 December 2019. It is one of the so-called new generation treaties negotiated and concluded by the European Union within the framework of the trade policy strategy launched in 2006. The FTA is complemented by the Investment Protection Agreement (IPA), signed in 2018 and whose entry into force requires the ratification by all EU Member States, in addition to the EU and Singapore. The overall purpose of the contribution is to assess to what extent the parties to the two agreements have not overlooked the dense network of other treaties and conventions that already govern their cooperation in economic matters. Indeed, the substantive provisions and the dispute settlement mechanisms established under the FTA and IPA have been inspired by these external sources and by their relevant case law. The analysis focuses, first, on the FTA provisions on trade in goods and services, establishment, subsidies, government procurement and intellectual property rights (para 2-6). Thereafter, the IPA is taken into consideration for the purposes of identifying possible overlaps with the FTA rules on establishment (para 7). Finally, focus is placed on the envisaged dispute settlement mechanisms, in view of the role they may play for a proper safeguard of the businesses’ interests (para 7). This issue arises because of the provisions included in both the FTA and the IPA excluding the direct effects of the two agreements in the parties’ legal order. Against this framework, the investor-State dispute settlement mechanism established under the IPA is called on to play a crucial role, also in the light of the detailed provisions on the enforcement of awards under art. 3.22 IPA.

In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Angela Lupone, Professor at the University of Milan: Nora Louisa Hesse, Die Vereinbarkeit des EU-Grenzbeschlagnahmeverfahres mit dem TRIPS Abkommen, Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen, 2018, pp. XI-274.

 

The most recent issue of the Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (German Journal of Comparative Law; Vol. 119 [2020], No.1) contains the following articles:

Ahmad Natour, Hebrew University, and Talia Einhorn, Ariel University (Israel): The Application of Islamic Law in Israel – Issues of Filiation between Secular and Religious Law, ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 1–40

This article (in English) presents a critical study of the application of Islamic law in Israel with respect to the establishment of filiation and its effects on Muslim families in Israel considering in particular the interplay between religious and secular law.

Sebastian Omlor, University of Marburg (Germany): Digitales Eigentum an Blockchain-Token – rechtsvergleichende Entwicklungslinien, ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 41–58

The process of digitalization involves classical and analogue fields of law like property law and object-related legal institutions like property. The paper analyses the openness and flexibility of different jurisdictions concerning the absolute (inter omnes) status of blockchain tokens by a legal comparison of, inter alia, England, California, Germany, and Liechtenstein.

Chris Thomale, University of Vienna (Austria): Herstellerhaftungsklagen – Internationaler Deliktsgerichtsstand und anwendbares Recht bei reinen Vermögensschäden wegen versteckter Produktmängel, ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 59–110

Product liability has evolved to become an important building block of modern consumer protection. Recent lawsuits, notably surrounding the Dieselgate scandal of German car manufacturers, show that such liability claims typically involve crossborder elements. This paper explores the international procedural and conflict of laws aspects of such lawsuits. It is aimed at raising awareness for victim protection as the overarching principle of both special jurisdiction for tort claims and the conflict of tort laws rule.

In addition, this issue – ZVglRWiss 119 (2020) 111–119 – contains a very elaborate essay of Felix M. Wilke, University of Bayreuth, who reviews “How European is European Private International Law?”, edited by Jan von Hein, Giesela Rühl and Eva-Maria Kieninger (2019). On this book, see also our previous post here.

Written by Tobias Lutzi, University of Cologne

One of the biggest winners of the current pandemic (other than toilet paper producers, conspiracy theorists, and the climate) seems to be the former Silicon Valley startup Zoom, whose videoconferencing solutions have seen its number of daily users increase about thirtyfold since the end of 2019. While the company’s success in a market otherwise dominated by some of the world’s wealthiest corporations has taken many people – including investors – by surprise, it can be attributed to a number of factors – arguably including its software’s highly popular virtual-background feature.

With more and more people using the cockpit of the Millennium Falcon, the couch from The Simpsons, and other iconic stills from movies or TV series as virtual backgrounds in their private and professional Zoom meetings and webinars, the question arises as to whether this may not constitute an infringement of copyright.

Unsurprisingly, this depends on the applicable law. Whereas using a single frame from a movie as a virtual background may often qualify as ‘fair use’ under US copyright law even in a professional setting (and thus require no permission from the copyright holder), no such limitation to copyright will be available in many European legal systems, with any ‘communication to the public’ in the sense of Art 3 of the Information Society Directive 2001/29/EC potentially constituting a copyright infringement under the domestic copyright laws of an EU Member State.

As far as copyright infringements are concerned, the rules of private international law differ significantly less than the rules of substantive law. Under the influence of the Berne Convention, the so-called lex loci protectionis principle has long become the leading approach in most legal systems, allowing copyright holders to seek protection under any domestic law under which they can establish a copyright infringement. For infringements committed through the internet, national courts have given the principle a notoriously wide application, under which the mere accessibility of content from a given country constitutes a sufficient basis for a copyright holder to seek protection under its domestic law. Accordingly, using an image on Zoom without the copyright holder’s permission in a webinar that is streamed to users in numerous countries exposes the user to just as many copyright laws – regardless of whether the image is used by the host or by someone else sharing their video with the other participants.

Interestingly, the fact that the image is only displayed to other users of the same software is unlikely to mitigate this risk. While Zoom’s (confusingly numbered) terms & conditions unsurprisingly prohibit infringements of intellectual property (clause 2.d.(vi)) and – equally unsurprisingly – subject the company’s legal relationship with its users to the laws of California (clause 22/20.1), courts have so far been slow to attach significance to such platform choices of law as with regard to the relationship between individual users. In fact, the EU Court of Justice held in Case C-191/15 Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Amazon (paras. 46–47) that even with regard to a platform hosts own liability in tort,

the fact that [the platform host] provides in its general terms and conditions that the law of the country in which it is established is to apply to the contracts it concludes cannot legitimately constitute […] a manifestly closer connection [in the sense of Art. 4(3) Rome II].

If it were otherwise, a professional […] would de facto be able, by means of such a term, to choose the law to which a non-contractual obligation is subject, and could thereby evade the conditions set out in that respect in Article 14(1)(a) of the Rome II Regulation.

While the escape clause of Art. 4(3) Rome is not directly applicable to copyright infringements anyway, the decision illustrates how courts will be hesitant to give effect to a platform host’s choice of law as far as the relationship between users – let alone between users and third parties – is concerned. This arguably also applies to other avenues such as Art. 17 Rome II and the concept of ‘local data’.

The liability risks described above are, of course, likely to remain purely theoretic. But they are also easily avoidable by not using images without permission from the copyright holder in any Zoom meeting or webinar that cannot safely be described as private under the copyright laws of all countries from where the meeting can be joined.

The issue 38/1 2020 of the Netherlands Journal of Private International Law (NIPR – Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht) has just been published. This issue of the NIPR is available here. It includes an Editorial and the following three articles (with abstracts) devoted to the new Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, concluded on 2 July 2019 (not yet in force see here):

1. Towards a global Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, by Hans van Loon

“This article describes the background and context of the ‘Hague Judgments Project’. Apart from earlier attempts, three stages may be distinguished in the history of this project: a first stage, dominated by the dynamics of the early European integration process, with the result that the 1965 and 1971 Hague Conventions on choice of court and recognition and enforcement of judgments, although providing inspiration for the 1968 Brussels Convention, remained unsuccessful; a second stage, very much determined by the transatlantic dimension, with differing strategic objectives of the EU and the USA notably regarding judicial jurisdiction, resulting in the lack of success of the ‘mixed’ convention proposal; and a third stage, where negotiations took on a more global character, resulting in the 2015 Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

“The article discusses the interaction between the global Hague and the regional EU negotiations on jurisdiction and enforcement of judgments, the impact of domestic judicial jurisdiction rules (the claim/forum relationship versus the defendant/forum link) on the Hague negotiations and other (in some cases: recurrent) core issues characterizing each of the aforementioned three stages, and their influence on the type (single, double, ‘mixed’) and form of convention that resulted from the negotiations.”

2. Comment on the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. Is the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 a useful tool for companies who are conducting international activities? By Catherine Kessedjian

“The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters, adopted on 2 July 2019, gives some certainty to worldwide trade relations outside regional systems such as the EU, when disputes are submitted to national courts instead of arbitration or mediation. The Convention avoids the difficult issue of ‘direct’ jurisdictional bases and limits itself to ‘indirect’ jurisdictional bases. This choice of policy was one of the keys to its adoption. Another one was the exclusion of many problematic areas of the law where differences in legal systems are too deep to allow consensus. A third one was to allow States becoming Parties to the Convention to make a number of declarations including some to protect their own acts, which may have been considered as acta jure gestionis under international law. Consequently, the Convention has a fairly narrow scope of application. This may induce more States to become a Party, without which the Convention would not have any more success than the old Hague Convention of 1971 which is still on the books, particularly because it still includes a bilateralisation system, albeit an easier one than that included in the 1971 Convention.”

3. The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention through European lenses, by Michael Wilderspin and Lenka Vysoka

“The European Union is an important actor in the field of international judicial cooperation and in the Hague Conference on Private International Law. It is itself a member of the Conference, and at the same time represents 27 States that are also members. Because of the EU’s own internal rules, where the matters being negotiated at international level are already the subject of EU rules, the EU speaks on behalf of its Member States. Furthermore, if the EU accedes to an international convention in such circumstances, the all or nothing principle applies. Either the EU accedes as a bloc or not at all.

“The 2019 Judgments Convention has the potential to facilitate the worldwide recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The approach taken by the negotiators has, particularly in the light of the failure of earlier, more ambitious projects, been to aim for a more modest convention, with the objective of encouraging as many States as possible to become Contracting Parties to the Convention.”

Moreover, the issue contains an article written in Dutch on preliminary questions submitted to the CJEU by the Supreme Court of the Netherlands in SHAPE/Supreme: on garnishment and immunity (HR 21 December 2018, ECLI:NL:HR:2018:2361 and HR 22 February 2019, ECLI:NL:HR:2019:292, NIPR 2019, 64), by A. F. Veldhuis

“The Supreme Group initiated proceedings in the Netherlands against two NATO bodies (SHAPE and JFCB) with regard to the alleged non-fulfilment of payment obligations under a contract relating to the supply of fuel to SHAPE for NATO’s mission in Afghanistan. On the basis of a Dutch order for garnishment, Supreme levied a garnishment on an escrow account in Belgium. SHAPE then initiated proceedings for interim relief before the Dutch courts, invoked immunity from enforcement and sought (i) to lift the garnishment and (ii) to prohibit Supreme from attaching the escrow account in the future. Both the court at first instance and the appellate court ruled that the seizure could be lifted. However, the Supreme Court questioned whether the Dutch courts had jurisdiction to adjudicate this dispute. Article 24(5) Brussels I-bis provides that the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced have exclusive jurisdiction regarding procedures concerning the enforcement of that judgment. As the garnishment was levied on the basis of an order for garnishment by a Dutch court on an account in Belgium, the question here is whether Article 24(5) Brussel I-bis also covers SHAPE’s application to the Dutch court to have the attachment lifted. Since there may be reasonable doubt as to the interpretation of Article 24(5) Brussels I-bis, the Supreme Court decided to refer the matter to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. Before going into this question, the Supreme Court must first examine whether the claims fall within the material scope of Brussels Ibis. The fact that SHAPE has based its requests on immunity from enforcement raises the question of whether, and if so to what extent, this case is a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) Brussels Ibis. In this respect, too, the Supreme Court saw sufficient grounds for submitting preliminary questions. This case has raised thought-provoking questions which navigate along the thin line between private international law and public international law.”

Written by Giesela Rühl, University of Jena/Humboldt-University of Berlin

Note: This blogpost is part of a series on „Corporate social responsibility and international law“ that presents the main findings of all contributions published in August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020.

1. Corporate social responsibility has been the subject of lively debates in private international law for many years. These debates revolve around the question of whether companies domiciled in countries of the Global North can be held liable for human rights violations committed by foreign subsidiaries or suppliers in countries of the Global South (so-called supply chain liability).

2. According to the majority view in the public international law literature, companies are not, at least not directly bound by human rights. Although numerous international law instruments, including the UN’s 2011 Guidelines for Business and Human Rights (Ruggie Principles), also address companies, liability for human rights violations is, therefore, a matter of domestic law.

3. The domestic law applicable to liability for human rights violations must be determined in accordance with the provisions of (European) private international law. Direct recourse to the lex fori, in contrast, is not possible. The legal situation in Europe is, therefore, different from the United States where actions which are brought on the basis of the Alien Tort Claims Act (ATCA) are governed by US-American federal (common) law.

4. Claims for human rights violations committed abroad will usually be claims in tort. Under (European) private international law it is, therefore, the law of the place where the damage occurs (Article 4(1) Rome II Regulation) and, hence, foreign law which governs these claims. Exceptions apply only within narrow limits, in particular if domestic laws can be classified as overriding mandatory provisions (Article 16 Rome II Regulation) or if application of foreign law violates the ordre public (Article 26 Rome II Regulation).

5. In addition to tort law, claims for human rights violations may also be based on company law, namely when directors are directly held liable for torts committed by a foreign subsidiary. According to the relevant private international law provisions of the Member States these claims are governed by the law of the (administrative or statutory) seat of the foreign subsidiary. As a consequence, claims in company law are also subject to foreign law.

6. The fact that (European) private international law submits liability for human rights violations to foreign law is very often criticized in the private international law literature. Claiming that foreign law does not sufficiently protect the victims of human rights violations, a number of scholars, therefore, attempt to subject liability claims de lege lata to the domestic law of the (European) parent or buyer company.

7. These attempts, however, raise a number of concerns: first, under traditional (European) private international law, substantive law considerations do not inform the determination of the applicable law. Second, the wish to apply the domestic law of a European country is mostly driven by the wish to avoid poorly functioning court systems and lower regulatory standards in countries of the Global South. Neither of these aspects, however, has anything to do with the applicable tort or company law. Regulatory standards, for example, are part of public law and, therefore, excluded from the reach of private international law. Finally, the assumption that the domestic law of the (European) parent or buyer company provides more or better protection to the victims of human rights violations does not hold true de lege lata. Since parent and buyer companies are legally independent from their foreign subsidiaries and suppliers, parent and buyer companies are only in exceptional cases liable to the victims of human rights violations committed abroad by their foreign subsidiaries or suppliers (legal entity principle or principle of entity liability).

8. The difficulties to hold (European) parent and buyer companies de lege lata liable for human rights violations committed by their foreign subsidiaries or suppliers raises the question of whether domestic laws should be reformed and their application ensured via the rules of private international law? Should domestic legislatures, for example, introduce an internationally mandatory human rights due diligence obligation and hold companies liable for violations? Proposals to this end are currently discussed in Germany and in Switzerland. In France, in contrast, they are already a reality. Here, the Law on the monitoring obligations of parent and buyer companies (Loi de vigilance) of 2017 imposes human rights due diligence obligations on bigger French companies and allows victims to sue for damages under the French Civil Code. The situation is similar in England. According to a Supreme Court decision of 2019 English parent companies may, under certain conditions, be held accountable for human rights violations committed by their foreign subsidiaries.

9. The introduction of an internationally mandatory human rights due diligence obligation at the level of national law certainly holds a number of advantages. In particular, it may encourage companies to take measures to prevent human rights violations through their foreign subsidiaries and suppliers. However, it is all but clear whether, under the conditions of globalization, any such obligation will actually contribute to improving the human rights situation in the countries of the Global South. This is because it will induce at least some companies to take strategic measures to avoid the costs associated with compliance. In addition, it will give a competitive advantage to companies which are domiciled in countries that do not impose comparable obligations on their companies.

10. Any human rights due diligence obligations should, therefore, not (only) be established at the national level, but also at the European or – even better – at the international level. In addition, accompanying measures should ensure that the same rules of play apply to all companies operating in the same market. And, finally, it should be clearly communicated that all these measures will increase prices for many products sold in Europe. In an open debate it will then have to be determined how much the Global North is willing to invest in better protection of human rights in the Global South.

 

Full (German) version: Giesela Rühl, Unternehmensverantwortung und (Internationales) Privatrecht, in: August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020, pp. 89 et seq.

 

Posted at the request of Sahil Verma, Managing Editor, Trade, Law and Development

General Issue

Issue 12.2 | Winter’20

The Board of Editors of Trade, Law and Development are pleased to invite original, unpublished manuscripts for publication in the Winter ’20 Issue of the Journal (Vol. 12, No. 2) in the form of ‘Articles’, ‘Notes’, ‘Comments’ and ‘Book Reviews’.

Manuscripts received by August 15th, 2020, pertaining to any area within the purview of international economic law will be reviewed for publication in the Winter ’20 issue.

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 may be submitted via e-mail or ExpressO. 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@tradelawdevelopment.com

LAST DATE FOR SUBMISSIONS: 15 August, 2020

Written by Nico Krisch, Graduate Institute for International and Development Studies, Geneva

Note: This blogpost is part of a series on „Corporate social responsibility and international law“ that presents the main findings of all contributions published in August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020.

1. The conceptual framework of jurisdictional boundaries in international law continues to be dominated by the principle of territoriality and its exceptions, even if calls for a reorientation have grown in recent years.

2. The principle of territoriality leads today to far wider jurisdictional claims than in the past, and its limits are being redefined through ‘territorial extensions’ in a number of areas.

3. These extensions are rarely questioned by states, and clear and consistent jurisdictional boundaries remain hard to define. Contestation arises primarily when states seek to use extraterritorial measures to counteract important policy choices of other states.

4. The result is a far-reaching overlap of different jurisdictional spheres which, if seen in conjunction with the multiple forms of transnational regulation existing today, leads to a multi-layered ‘jurisdictional assemblage’.

5. So far, there are no accepted rules governing the relationship of competing jurisdictional spheres in this assemblage. The effective exercise of jurisdiction depends, in large part, on the political and economic power of a country in a given issue area and market.

6. The wider options for action that result from this territorial extension allow for more effective responses to existing societal challenges, especially with a view to the provision of (national and global) public goods, albeit in a limited way.

7. The new jurisdictional regime accentuates hierarchies between countries, interferes with the autonomy of weaker states, and subverts the principle of sovereign equality. Yet under certain circumstances, it also allows actors in weaker states to compensate for their otherwise limited ability to hold multinational companies to account.

8. Existing procedural and substantive proposals only have limited promise for alleviating the tensions resulting from the power imbalance in the exercise of jurisdiction.

9. The territorial principle in the law of jurisdiction has always been sufficiently limited not to overly impede powerful states’ pursuit of their interests.

10. Territoriality today appears less as a principle of effective limitations than as the basis of different strategies and tactics through which states seek to hold mobile actors to account and through which they pursue their political aims in a global context.

 

Full (German) version: Nico Krisch, Entgrenzte Jurisdiktion: Die extraterritoriale Durchsetzung von Unternehmensverantwortung, in: August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020, pp. 11 et seq.

Written by Anatol Dutta, University of Munich

Note: This blogpost is part of a series on „Corporate social responsibility and international law“ that presents the main findings of the contributions published in August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020.

1. The question of the reach of courts’ jurisdiction is highly significant for claims against transnational enterprises based on human rights violations or environmental damages abroad. It does not only determine the applicable law but also the access to a particular justice system.

2. Universal jurisdiction of national courts for human rights and environmental damages claims against enterprises cannot be established, neither on the basis of existing law nor from a legal policy perspective. Rather, such claims have to be handled under the traditional jurisdictional mechanisms.

3. From a global perspective, a remarkable shift regarding jurisdiction can be noted: Whereas the courts in the United States are increasingly limiting access to their justice system in cases with foreign elements, jurisdictional limits are no significant hurdle for human rights and environmental damages claims in the European Union.

4. Domestic enterprises can be sued at their seat. Yet, the forum non conveniens doctrine allows US courts – and perhaps soon English courts as well – to decline jurisdiction, also for human rights and environmental damages claims.

5. Yet, human rights and environmental damages claims against foreign enterprises can also only be brought under certain circumstances in the EU.

6. Claims against foreign enterprises for human rights violations and environmental damages abroad can only rarely be brought before domestic courts based on special jurisdiction related to specific subject matters, for example the jurisdiction for tort claims at the place where the harmful event occurred.

7. If human rights and environmental damages claims are simultaneously directed against a domestic enterprise, for example a mother company or a buyer company in the EU, at least partially, foreign subsidiaries and suppliers can be sued on the basis of special jurisdiction over multiple defendants which can be used strategically.

a) If foreign enterprises have their seat in a third State outside the European Union, the jurisdiction of the domestic courts over the foreign co-defendant is governed by the national law of the forum Member State.

b) However, the current trend to establish a separate liability of domestic enterprises, for example, by extending human rights and environment-related duties of care for the supply chain, could endanger this special jurisdiction over multiple defendants, which, on the other hand, could lose significance.

8. Extending the general jurisdiction at the domicile of the defendant by relying on a personal criterion different to the seat of the defendant enterprise is not a viable solution.

a) Today US courts refuse to exercise jurisdiction based solely on the foreign enterprise ‘doing business’ within the territory. In some EU Member States, for claims against foreign enterprises at least with a seat in a third State, exorbitant jurisdiction can be established, for example, based on assets of the foreign defendant enterprise within the territory.

b) At the most from a policy perspective, for claims against foreign subsidiaries of a domestic enterprise the introduction of an enterprise jurisdiction could be considered.

9. For claims against foreign enterprises jurisdiction of the domestic courts can often only be based on a forum necessitatis if proceedings cannot reasonably and effectively be brought or conducted abroad; the hurdles for such an exceptional jurisdiction are, however, high.

10. To hear human rights and environmental damages claims against enterprises lies within the powers of the domestic courts.

a) Foreign enterprises do not enjoy State immunity even if they violate human rights or damage the environment abroad in collaboration with foreign States.

b) The power to adjudicate is also not limited by the fact that a decision of the court on human rights and environmental damages claims potentially has implications on the foreign policy relations of the forum State.

c) The domestic courts are often even not barred from deciding on human rights and environmental damages claims of foreign States against enterprises.

 

Full (German) version: Anatol Dutta, Internationale Zuständigkeit für privatrechtliche Klagen gegen transnational tätige Unternehmen wegen der Verletzung von Menschenrechten und von Normen zum Schutz der natürlichen Lebensgrunlagen im Ausland, in: August Reinisch, Stephan Hobe, Eva-Maria Kieninger & Anne Peters (eds), Unternehmensverantwortung und Internationales Recht, C.F. Müller, 2020, pp. 39 et seq.

In April 2019 the German Society of International Law (Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationales Recht) held its 36th biannual conference at the University of Vienna. Organised by August Reinisch (University of Vienna) in cooperation with Eva Maria Kieninger (University of Würzburg) and Anne Peters (Max Planck Institute Heidelberg), the conference  discussed the concept of „Corporate social responsibility“ from both a public and a private international law perspective. Presentations were given by Tanja Domej (University of Zurich), Oliver Dörr (University of Osnabrück), Anatol Dutta (University of Munich), Peter Hilpold (University of Innsbruck), Stefan Huber (University of Tübingen), Nico Krisch (Graduate Institut of Geneva), Giesela Rühl (University of Jena/Humboldt-University of Berlin) and Silja Vöneky (University of Freiburg).

Over the course of the next days conflictoflaws.net will present the main findings of the contributions in a series of blogposts. The full (German) contributions can be found in the conference proceedings that have just been published by C.F. Müller.

The Choice of Court Convention is already close to its 5th year of application. Case law is still scarce. A Greek court tackled with the question, whether to apply the Convention or not. It decided that it should apply, but at the end it considered that the agreement was asymmetric, therefore outside the scope of the Convention.

 

THE FACTS

The claimant is a ship owner company registered in Monrovia, Liberia. While the claimant’s ship was on its way to Novorossiysk, Russia, the claimant agreed with a company registered in Hong Kong [defendant], having however a branch in Piraeus, to buy a quantity of petrol, to be delivered at the port of the Russian city. A few days later, both the ship and the fuel were in Novorossiysk. During bunkering, the 1st engineer of the ship requested the interruption of the supply. He was suspicious that petrol was not of the agreed quality. A technical inspection a couple days later proved that the engineer was right. As a result, litigation ensued before the Piraeus courts. The defendant did not challenge the court’s international jurisdiction. At the same time, he filed an interpleader action against the petrol supplier. The latter, a company registered in Monaco, challenged the jurisdiction of the Greek court, by invoking a choice of forum agreement between the parties, stipulated on the invoice issued as a standard term of the deal.

 

THE RULING

The court engaged in a thorough analysis of the issue: It confirmed that the agreement was falling under the scope of the convention both ratione temporis and ratione materiae. The agreement was signed after the entry into force of the Convention (1/10/2015) and concerned a genuinely commercial dispute. It then examined the content of the choice of forum clause, and considered that the agreement was asymmetric, i.e. unilaterally in favor of the seller, and to the detriment of the buyer. As a second step, the court found that the Brussels Ia Regulation was also not applicable, because the conditions provided by Article 25, lit. a – c were not met. Following the above, the court resumed to domestic provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, in order to establish its international jurisdiction (Article 31, similar actions).

 

COMMENT

The wording of the choice of court clause reads as follows: The contract is governed by English law; the contracting parties accept the exclusive jurisdiction of English courts for the resolution of any dispute related to the present contract [translated by the author]. I don’t think I need to say anything here; there’s nothing asymmetric in this clause. I will just reproduce a passage from the Explanatory Report prepared by Professors Hartley and Dogauchi:

105 Asymmetric agreements. Sometimes a choice of court agreement is drafted to be exclusive as regards proceedings brought by one party but not as regards proceedings brought by the other party. International loan agreements are often drafted in this way. A choice of court clause in such an agreement may provide, “Proceedings by the borrower against the lender may be brought exclusively in the courts of State X; proceedings by the lender against the borrower may be brought in the courts of State X or in the courts of any other State having jurisdiction under its law.”

 

The final point I want to make is that the court shouldn’t go that far with the examination of the matter. As mentioned above, the parties in question were registered in Hong Kong and Monaco. Both countries are not signatory members to the Hague Convention. Hence, the analysis was unnecessary.

 

Conclusion: Bad publicity is still publicity. There are of course drawbacks in the court’s analysis; still, on the other side, it is very fortunate that the court examined the facts from the Hague Convention’s point of view too. The worst case scenario would have been to ignore completely the Convention’s existence, which regrettably occurs occasionally, both for Hague Conventions and sometimes for EU Regulations as well.

 

[Piraeus Court of First Instance nr. 3106/2019, available (in Greek) here]

Today, the ECJ decided in case C-641/18 –  LG and Others v. Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale, on the concepts of ‘civil and commercial matters’ and ‘administrative matters’ under Article 1 Brussels I Regulation.

The case arose from the following facts:

14      LG and Others — relatives of the victims and survivors of the sinking of the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel in the Red Sea on 2 and 3 February 2006, in which more than 1 000 people lost their lives — brought an action before the Tribunale di Genova (District Court, Genoa, Italy) against the Rina companies — ship classification and certification societies — whose seat is in Genoa.

15      LG and Others claim compensation for the pecuniary and non-pecuniary losses stemming from the Rina companies’ civil liability, arguing that the classification and certification operations for the Al Salam Boccaccio’98 vessel, carried out by the Rina companies under a contract concluded with the Republic of Panama, for the purposes of obtaining that State’s flag for that vessel, were the cause of that sinking.

16      The Rina companies contend that the referring court lacks jurisdiction, relying on the international-law principle of immunity from jurisdiction of foreign States. In particular, according to those companies, the classification and certification operations which they conducted were carried out upon delegation from the Republic of Panama and, therefore, are a manifestation of the sovereign powers of the delegating State.

17      According to LG and Others, by contrast, given that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy and the dispute at issue in the main proceedings is civil in nature, within the meaning of Article 1 of Regulation No 44/2001, the Italian courts have jurisdiction under Article 2(1) of that regulation. In addition, LG and Others submit that the plea of immunity from jurisdiction, relied on by the Rina companies, does not cover activities that are governed by non-discretionary technical rules which are, in any event, unrelated to the political decisions and prerogatives of a State.

18      The referring court raises the question of the jurisdiction of the Italian courts in so far as, while it is common ground that the Rina companies have their seat in Italy, it is claimed that they acted upon delegation from the Republic of Panama.

19      In that regard, the referring court refers, in its request for a preliminary ruling, to the case-law of the Corte costituzionale (Constitutional Court, Italy) and of the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Supreme Court of Cassation, Italy) concerning immunity from jurisdiction. In accordance with the case-law of those supreme courts, recognition of immunity from jurisdiction is precluded only in respect of the acts of foreign States consisting in war crimes and crimes against humanity or where such recognition undermines the principle of judicial protection.

The Court held that

Article 1(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of and upon delegation from a third State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’, within the meaning of that provision, and, therefore, within the scope of that regulation, provided that that classification and certification activity is not exercised under public powers, within the meaning of EU law, which it is for the referring court to determine. The principle of customary international law concerning immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude the national court seised from exercising the jurisdiction provided for by that regulation in a dispute relating to such an action, where that court finds that such corporations have not had recourse to public powers within the meaning of international law.

The full text of the judgment is here.

The CoL post on the Opinion of Advocate General Szpunar in this case is here.

The Organization of American States (OAS) has announced that it is launching a weekly virtual forum entitled “Inter-American law in times of pandemic”.  It begins on Monday 11 May at 11:00 am (EDT, local time in Washington, D.C.).  The first session “Challenges to Inter-American Law” will be held in Spanish, with no simultaneous interpretation. Registration is free but space is limited. The agenda is available here.

As announced, “the topics to be discussed in relation to the impact of the pandemic in the Americas will include: the challenges to Inter-American law; the importance of access to public information; protection of privacy and personal data; the fight against corruption; legal cooperation against cyber-crime; food security as a specific challenge; the difficulties for private international law; among others.”

The list of virtual fora is available here. On Monday 29 June 2020, a forum will be held on “New Challenges for Private International Law.” Apparently, the sessions will be recorded and will be available on video later on the OAS website.

In addition, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) has published a COVID-19 Toolkit, which is available in both English and French.

By Stephen G.A. Pitel, Faculty of Law, Western University

Instrubel, N.V., a Dutch corporation, has been attempting in litigation in Quebec to garnish assets of the Republic of Iraq.  The difficult issue has been the nature of the assets sought to be garnished and where they are, as a matter of law, located.  The assets are funds in a bank account in Switzerland payable to the Republic of Iraq (through the Iraqi Civil Aviation Authority) by IATA, a Montreal-based trade association.

The judge at first instance held the assets were not a debt obligation but in effect the property of the Republic of Iraq and located in Switzerland and so could not be subject to garnishment in Quebec proceedings.  The Court of Appeal reversed, holding the assets were a debt due to the Republic of Iraq which it could enforce against the trade association at its head office in Quebec, so that the debt was located in Quebec under the basic rule for locating the situs of a debt.

Last December the Supreme Court of Canada denied the appeal for the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal.  One judge, Justice Cote, dissented with reasons to follow.  On May 1, 2020, she released those reasons: see International Air Transport Association v. Instrubel, N.V., 2019 SCC 61 (available here).

As a Quebec case, the decision is based on the civil law.  Justice Cote’s dissent hinges on the view that the funds in the account are the property of the Republic of Iraq, not the IATA, and are merely being held by the latter before being remitted to the former (see para. 36).  The funds are not part of the “patrimony” of the IATA.  This is because the nature of the agreement between the Republic of Iraq and the IATA is one of “mandate” (see paras. 40-41 and 45).  As Justice Cote notes (at para. 48) “there is a general principle in the law of mandate that a mandatary’s obligation towards a mandator is not a debt”.  While the payments that went into the bank account were collected and held by the IATA, they were made to the Republic of Iraq (para. 53).  Indeed, the account “is for practical purposes equivalent to a trust account” (para. 61).

As noted, the six judges in the majority simply adopted the reasons of the Quebec Court of Appeal (available here).  So they did not directly engage with Justice Cote’s reasons.  The Court of Appeal concluded (at para. 41) that “there is no ownership of or real right to the funds … Rather, there is a creditor/debtor relationship”.  It also observed that the Republic of Iraq “never owned the debts due it by various airlines in consideration of landing at Iraqi airports.  It does not now own the funds collected in satisfaction of those debts and deposited by IATA in its bank account.  IATA’s obligation is to pay a sum of money not to give the dollar bills received from third parties” (para. 43).

The Court of Appeal noted (at para. 50) a practical rationale for its conclusion: “More significantly it seems that [Instrubel, N.V.] and others in similar positions which seek to execute an unsatisfied claim would be forced into an international “shell game” of somehow discovering (or guessing) where the mandatary/garnishee (IATA), deposited the money – a virtually impossible task.  The law, correctly applied, should not lead, in my view, to such unworkable results.  As the in personam debtor of ICAA, it matters not whether IATA deposited the money it collected and giving rise to such indebtedness in a bank account in Geneva, New York or Montreal.  The situs of its bank account does not change the situs of the debt IATA owes to its creditor.  As such, that funds were initially collected in Montreal or at an IATA branch office in another country is inconsequential.”

The case is at minimum important for what it does not do, which is authorize the garnishing of assets outside Quebec.  All judges take the position that would be impermissible.

In addition to our Twitter account, you can now also follow us on LinkedIn to see all our latest posts and updates directly in your news feed.

You can find our profile here.

 

Pedro de Miguel Asensio from the Universidad Complutense de Madrid has published a book on Conflict of laws and the Internet. The publisher’s blurb reads as follows: . The ubiquity of the Internet contrasts with the territorial nature of national legal orders. This book offers a comprehensive analysis of jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement of judgments issues concerning online activities in the areas in which private legal relationships are most affected by the Internet. It provides an in-depth study of EU Law in this particularly dynamic field, with references to major developments in other jurisdictions. Topics comprise information society services, data protection, defamation, copyright, trademarks, unfair competition and contracts, including consumer protection and alternative dispute resolution. . Key features include:

• comprehensive analysis of the complex conflict of laws issues that arise in connection with Internet activities
• discussion on the jurisdiction of national courts and the determination of applicable law
• a European perspective on the relationship between Internet Law and Private International Law (PIL)
• consideration of the cross-border effects of judgments in all major fields of PIL affected by the Internet.

Conflict of Laws and the Internet will be a vital resource for practitioners and policy-makers alike with applications for IT law experts and companies active in e-commerce. Providing a strong doctrinal base for an area of ever increasing importance and attention, this book will also be a valuable reference for academics working in the fields of IT law and PIL.

Additional information plus access to its detailed table of contents are available here.

The latest issue of the Italian Journal Diritto del commercio internazionale (34.1/2020) features an article (in English) on “Brexit and Cross-Border Insolvency Looking Beyond the Withdrawal Agreement” written by Antonio Leandro (University of Bari).

The abstract of the article reads as follows: “The UK and the EU have concluded the Withdrawal Agreement which officially triggers the so-called Brexit. However, the real effects of the Brexit still are unclear, at least as regards the future following the end of the transition period provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement during which the UK will be treated as if it were a Member State. After the transition period, mini hard Brexit(s) are in fact likely for matters currently governed by the EU Law that the Parties will not want to relocate in new legal frameworks, such as bilateral treaties. The paper addresses the consequences of a mini hard Brexit for cross-border insolvency proceedings involving the UK and the Member States with the aim to explain why this specter should be avoided”.

Today, Advocate General Szpunar delivered his Opinion in Case C-253/19 – MH, NI v. OJ, Novo Banco SA. As is generally known, Article 3 of Regulation 2015/848, entitled ‘International jurisdiction’, provides in paragraph 1:

‘The courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated shall have jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings (“main insolvency proceedings”). The centre of main interests shall be the place where the debtor conducts the administration of its interests on a regular basis and which is ascertainable by third parties.

In the case of a company or legal person, the place of the registered office shall be presumed to be the centre of its main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary. That presumption shall only apply if the registered office has not been moved to another Member State within the 3-month period prior to the request for the opening of insolvency proceedings.

In the case of an individual exercising an independent business or professional activity, the centre of main interests shall be presumed to be that individual’s principal place of business in the absence of proof to the contrary. That presumption shall only apply if the individual’s principal place of business has not been moved to another Member State within the 3-month period prior to the request for the opening of insolvency proceedings.

In the case of any other individual, the centre of main interests shall be presumed to be the place of the individual’s habitual residence in the absence of proof to the contrary. This presumption shall only apply if the habitual residence has not been moved to another Member State within the 6-month period prior to the request for the opening of insolvency proceedings.’

As the Opinion explains (paras. 4 et seq.):

4. The applicants are married to each other and, since 2016, have been resident in Norfolk (United Kingdom), where they are engaged in paid employment. The couple made a request to the Portuguese courts to declare them insolvent. The court of first instance declared that it did not have international jurisdiction to rule on their request, holding that, under the fourth subparagraph of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2015/848, the centre of their main interests was their place of habitual residence, namely the United Kingdom.

5. The applicants brought an appeal against that judgment before the referring court, claiming that it was based on a misinterpretation of the rules laid down by Regulation 2015/848. In that regard, they submitted that, in so far as the sole immovable asset that they owned was located in Portugal, where all the transactions which gave rise to their insolvency had occurred, the centre of their main interests was not their place of habitual residence (United Kingdom), but was located in Portugal. Moreover, they claimed that there is no connection between their current place of residence and the events that led to their insolvency, which occurred entirely in Portugal.

6. The referring court has doubts as to the correct interpretation of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2015/848 and is uncertain, in particular, of the criteria to be used for the purpose of rebutting the simple presumption laid down in that provision for natural persons not exercising an independent business or professional activity, according to which, for such persons, the habitual residence of the concerned party is presumed to be the centre of that party’s main interests in the absence of proof to the contrary.

7. In that regard, the referring court points out that recital 30 of that regulation states that, in the case of natural persons not exercising an independent business or professional activity, it should be possible to rebut that presumption, for example where the major part of the debtor’s assets is located outside the Member State of the debtor’s habitual residence.

AG Szpunar proposed (paras. 65 et seq.) that the Court should answer the question referred for a preliminary ruling by the Tribunal da Relação de Guimarães (Court of Appeal, Guimarães, Portugal) as follows:

Article 3(1), first and fourth subparagraphs, of Regulation (EC) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption that the habitual residence of a debtor who is a natural person not engaged in a self-employed activity is the centre of his main interests may be rebutted if the place of habitual residence does not fulfil its role as the place where a debtor’s economic decisions are taken, as the place where the majority of his revenue is earned and spent, or as the place where the major part of his assets is located.

However, that presumption cannot be rebutted in favour of the Member State within the territory of which a debtor’s sole immovable asset is located in the absence of any other indication that the centre of that debtor’s main interests is located in that Member State. That fact may be determined on the basis of objective factors which are ascertainable by third parties (current and potential creditors) and relate to the financial interests of that debtor.