EAPIL blog

The PAX Moot case for the 2024 moot competition on private international law is now out. The 2024 Round is dedicated to Petar Šarčević.

The Petar Šarčević Round explores social media platforms’ activities such as content creation and monetization from a private international law perspective.

The case requires participants to deal with matters of international jurisdiction of the District Court of Ljubljana and applicable law in a complex factual situation involving parental responsibility, contractual relationships, validity of a contractual relationship entered into by a minor, termination of contractual relations, tort claims, and removal of online published content.

The moot competition has two phases: a written and an oral round. The oral round will take place in Ljubljana from 24-26 April 2024.

More information about the competition, the schedule building up to the oral round in Ljubljana, the applicable rules for the Petar Šarčević Round, and the registration procedure for the teams taking this challenge will follow soon.

To all teams deciding to join the competition: good luck in preparing the case!

The author of this post is Costanza Honorati, professor of EU law and private international law at the University of Milan Bicocca. She chaired the working group that prepared a position paper on behalf of the  European Association of Private International Law in view of the eight meeting of the Special Commission on the practical operation on the 1980 Child Abduction and the 1996 Child Protection Conventions, and attended the meeting on behalf of EAPIL.

The Special Commission (SC) charged by the Hague Conference on Private International to discuss  the practical operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the 1996 Child Protection Convention met for the eighth time from 10 to 17 October 2023. The meeting was attended by 471 delegates, in person and online, representing 66 HCCH Members, 13 non-Member Contracting Parties, 27 observers from inter-governmental and non-governmental organisations, including the European Association of Private International Law (see its position paper as Info. Doc. No 18 of October 2023)

As usual, at the end of the meeting the SC adopted a set of Conclusions & Recommendations (C&R), whose content is briefly summarized below, with a focus on a selection of issues. To the reader’s benefit the two Conventions are addressed here separately.

The 1980 Child Abduction Convention

The SC took note that, since the Seventh Meeting of the SC in 2017, five States have become Contracting Parties to the 1980 Child Abduction Convention (Barbados, Botswana, Cabo Verde, Cuba, and Guyana), bringing the total number of Contracting Parties to the Convention to 103.

Interesting information were drawn from the fifth Statistical Study drawn by prof. Nigel Lowe and Victoria Stephens for the year 2021 (Prel. Doc. No 19A ). While the data in that year are likely to have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic, a few relevant findings are worth mentioning. Among these, the increase in the average number of days it took to reach a final decision; the increase of refusals to return; the almost double increase of proportion of refusals to return on the basis of the Article 13(1)(b) exception, compared with the results of the 2015 statistical study; the small decrease in cases going to court; the increase of cases being settled outside court .

While the SC has reaffirmed and reiterated some of the conclusions adopted in previous meetings, a few specific topics have been discussed in greater detail.

Under the heading Addressing delays under the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the SC found that delays continue to be a significant obstacle in the operation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and the SC strongly recommended Contracting Parties experiencing delays to review their existing processes in order to identify potential causes of delays.

With this in mind the SC reiterated

the effectiveness and value of the use of information technology for efficient communication between authorities, sharing of data, and to assist in reducing delays and expedite return proceedings.

The SC thus encouraged States to continue implementing and enhancing the use of information technology and to make use of the Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention as a helpful resource (para 5-9).

The SC then addressed the Relationship of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention with other international instruments – 1989 UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC). Having recalled the rationale for the return of the child and the scope of the return proceedings, the SC emphasized how return proceedings should not include a comprehensive ‘best interests assessment’. In particular the SC stated, at para 14 e 15 that

[w]hile the exceptions derive from a consideration of the interests of the child, they do not turn the return proceedings into custody proceedings. Exceptions are focussed on the (possible non-) return of the child. They should neither deal with issues of custody nor mandate a full “best interests assessment” for a child within return proceedings.

Similar findings are featured in the communication No 121/2020 of the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child under the Optional Protocol on a Communications Procedure.

The SC had a lively discussion on the Application of Article 13(1)(b) of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention in a contest of Domestic violence. The C&R reflect the discussion summarizing some of the results as following. It firstly makes reference to the Guide to Good Practices on Article 13, noting that, according to paragraph 33,

harm to a parent, whether physical or psychological, could, in some exceptional circumstances, create a grave risk that the return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation. The Article 13(1)(b) exception does not require, for example, that the child be the direct or primary victim of physical harm if there is sufficient evidence that, because of a risk of harm directed to a taking parent, there is a grave risk to the child.

In light of the ongoing discussions and initiatives promoted by advocates for victims of domestic violence, the SC supported the proposal to hold a international open forum allowing for discussions amongst organisations representing parents and children and those applying the Convention. The Philippines offered to assess hosting the forum in Manila in 2024 and States have been invited to contribute in the organisation and funding of such a forum (para 26)

Closely connected to domestic violence is the related issue of Safe return and measures of protection. Interestingly, the SC made it clear that a court may also order protective measures to protect the accompanying parent in order to address the grave risk to the child (para 28). As regards undertakings, the SC reiterated that the efficacy of the measures of protection will depend on whether they are enforceable in the State of habitual residence of the child. Insofar, voluntary undertakings are not easily or always enforceable and, because they may not be effective in many cases, they should be used with greatest caution. It was also suggested that, when undertakings are made to the court of the requested State, they should be included in the return order in order to help facilitate enforcement in the State of habitual residence of the child. This is a new practice that could come result interesting.

The issue of hearing of the child again attracted much interest. Based on the fact that States follow very different approaches when hearing the child, C&R aim to circulate some good practices, such as (para 37)

a) the person who hears the child, be it the judge, an independent expert or any other person, should have appropriate training to carry out this task in a child-friendly manner and training on international child abduction; b) if the person hearing the child speaks to one parent, they should speak to the other; c) the person hearing the child should not express any view on questions of custody and access as the child abduction application deals only with return.

It was also emphasised that when hearing the child for the purposes of Article 13(2), this should be done only for such purpose and not in respect of broader questions concerning the welfare of the child, which are for the court of the child’s habitual residence. In other terms, the hearing of the child should be kept in the framework of an exception to return and not embrace a wider scope.

The very topical issue of asylum claim lodged in abduction cases was also shortly discussed, on the basis of Prel. Doc. No 16 . The C&R only indicate that such proceedings should be examined expeditiously (para 40).

The 1996 Hague Convention

Eight new States have become Contracting Parties to the 1996 Child Protection Convention since the 2017 SC, namely Barbados, Cabo Verde, Costa Rica, Fiji, Guyana, Honduras, Nicaragua and Paraguay, thus bringing the total number of Contracting Parties to the Convention to 54 (27 of which are EU Member States).

Some interesting clarifications were given in relation to recognition and enforcement of protection measures. First, in relation to the scope of application of Article 26(1) – a rule which provides that, where measures taken in one Contracting Party require enforcement in another Contracting Party, such measures shall be declared enforceable or registered for the purpose of enforcement in that other Contracting Party – the SC made it clear that not all measures of protection require enforcement under Article 26. Enforcement shall be required, for example, for the forced sale of property; or in relation to a parent refusing to abide by the orders made by the competent authority in another State. Because not all cases fall under Article 26, the SC invited Contracting Parties (in relation to their laws) and competent authorities (in relation to their procedures) to differentiate between those measures that require enforcement and those that do not (para 74-75).

Second, it was noted that, in order to facilitate the recognition and enforcement of measures of protection, the competent authority should carefully describe those measures in the decision and the grounds upon which it based its jurisdiction, including when jurisdiction is based on Article 11(1) (para 77-78).

Another interesting topic on which the SC focused is the placement of children. In this regard the SC endeavored to clarify what should be regarded as placement under Article 3(e) and Article 33 (i.e. any placement of the child in a foster family or in institutional care, or the provision of care by kafala or an analogous institution) ) and also what should not be regarded as a placement (i.e. purely private arrangements, including the ones in the form of an agreement or unilateral act, including a notarial kafala; a child travelling abroad for tourism purposes with their foster parent) (para. 83 et seq).

It then offered a useful guidance on minimum steps for the procedure under Article 33. These include the following:

1. The competent authority of the State which is contemplating the measure of alternative care must consult the Central Authority or competent authority in the State where it is proposed that the measure will be exercised by: (1) discussing the possibility of such a placement in the receiving State; (2) transmitting a report on the child; (3) explaining the reasons for the proposed placement or provision of care outside the requesting State and in the requested State.

2. The Central Authority or competent authority of the State where it is proposed that the measure will be exercised gives its consent to the proposed placement or provision of care.

3. If the requested State has consented to the placement or provision of care, taking into account the child’s best interests, the competent authority of the requesting State then issues its decision.

 Call for Further Action

Finally, as a result of the lively debate in the course of the SC, the need for further future action of both the Permanent Bureau (PB) and Contracting States was recommended. This was further reflected in the C&R with respect to the following topics.

In relation to direct judicial communications and the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ), the proposal was advanced to develop a short model guide to court practice and further initiatives to hold a regional in-person meeting of the IHNJ in Brazil (May 2024) and a global in-person meeting of the IHNJ in Singapore (May 2025) (para 19).

Regarding the determination of wrongful removal pursuant Articles 8, 14 and 15, the SC invited the PB to draw up a note containing information on the use of such rules, drawing from the contents of Prel. Doc. No 14. (para 46).

As to the revised Request for Return Recommended Model Form and the new Request for Access Recommended Model Form, the SC concluded that further work needed. A Group of interested delegates will assist the PB in finalising both revised Forms (para 50).

Concerning relocation, after noting the strong impact on international abduction and the diversity of approaches of States in this matter, the SC proposed the development of a questionnaire by the PB directed to States to gather information about procedures that States have in place to facilitate lawful relocation (para 54);

With regard to transfer of proceedings under Article 8 and 9 of the 1996 Child Protection Convention, besides recalling the general duty to cooperate among Central Authorities and direct judicial communications between judges involved in a transfer of jurisdiction, the PB was asked to circulate the questionnaire annexed to to all Contracting Parties to the 1996 Child Protection Convention, with a view to collecting information from judges and Central Authorities regarding requests under Article 8 or 9 and to then review such document in light of the responses from Contracting Parties (para 69).

Finally, on the placement of children, the PB was asked to start collecting information on the operation of Article 33 from Contracting Parties in addition to that set out in Doc. No 20 and that a Working Group be established to develop: (a) a model form for cooperation under Article 33; and (b) a guide on the operation of Article 33.

It does not happen often that an arbitral award is successfully challenged in England for serious irregularity under section 68 of the Arbitration Act 1996.

This happens even less often when an award is rendered by a tribunal as prominent as the one in Process and Industrial Developments Ltd v Nigeria, which included Lord Hoffmann (former UKSC judge) as Chairman, Sir Anthony Evans (former EWCA judge), and Chief Bayo Ojo SAN (former Attorney General of Nigeria).

It is outright extraordinary for a judgment to conclude by urging reform of international commercial arbitration and noting that a copy of the judgment will be referred to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority to consider the professional consequences of the conduct of two lawyers involved in an arbitration.

And yet Knowles J did all of this in his judgment of 23 October 2023 in Nigeria v P&ID.

Facts

In 2010, the parties entered into a gas supply and processing contract that provided for arbitration in London. Under the contract, Nigeria was to supply gas to processing facilities constructed and operated by P&ID, a BVI company. The stated duration of the contract was 20 years. Neither party performed its obligations, and a dispute arose. A tribunal was constituted. It ruled in favour of P&ID, and ordered Nigeria to pay USD6.6b. Interest was awarded at a rate of 7%, eventually ballooning to USD11b. Nigeria argued that the contract and the arbitration were compromised due to corruption, bribery, and fraud. Knowles J describes the surrounding circumstances in great detail in his judgment that spans 595 paragraphs or 140 pages with annexed materials. Jonathan Bonnitcha provides a useful summary of the facts in his post of 23 March 2021, reporting on a 2020 High Court judgment in this case (footnotes omitted):

“the contract was based on an unsolicited proposal presented to the Nigerian government by P&ID. No tender was conducted. Moreover, P&ID did not appear to have the experience in the gas sector that would be expected of a company responsible for a multibillion-dollar project—it was an offshore entity with ‘no assets, only a handful of employees, and was without a website or other presence.’

… the arbitration was conducted in private. Indeed, even the fact that the arbitration was taking place did not become public knowledge until 2015, following a change of government in Nigeria, at which point in time the jurisdictional and merits phases of the arbitration had already concluded. Despite a number of ‘red flags’ of corruption relating to the contract, Nigeria did not directly raise the issue of corruption in its defence of the arbitration. (Nigeria’s lawyers in the arbitration did obliquely describe the Minister of Petroleum Resources at the time the contract was signed ‘as having been a “friendly” Minister who purported to commit the Government to obligations and concessions which exceeded his powers.’) Based on documents that are publicly available, it seems that the tribunal also did not take any steps to determine whether the contract might have been procured through corruption.

Given the many billions of dollars at stake, the way the arbitration unfolded was also unusual. Nigeria’s lawyers failed to file expert evidence on jurisdictional issues of Nigerian law, or insist on an oral hearing on jurisdiction where P&ID’s evidence might have been tested through cross-examination. At the merits phase, Nigeria failed to challenge the key claims contained in the statement of P&ID’s central witness, its chairman, Michael Quinn. It put forward only one ineffectual witness of its own who did ‘not claim to have first-hand knowledge of any of the relevant events.’ The tribunal did hold a hearing on the merits, but it lasted only a few hours. The tribunal concluded that Nigeria had repudiated the contract.

The tribunal’s decision on quantum was based on a single witness statement from the investor. It did not order the production of documents that might have proved (or disproved) these self-serving claims… the investor had not commenced construction of the gas facility and estimated its own expenditure in relation to the project at around USD 40 million. (In the subsequent British court proceedings, the investor conceded that this expenditure had not been incurred by P&ID at all but, rather, by another company owned by a former Nigerian general.)”

Judgment

Knowles J made three key findings. First, P&ID provided to the tribunal and relied on Mr Quinn’s false evidence. Mr Quinn omitted to mention that the legal director at the Ministry of Petroleum Resources had been paid a USD5,000 bribe before the conclusion of the contract and a USD5,000 bribe after ([494]). Second, P&ID continued to pay bribes, in the total amount of USD4,900, to this official “to keep her ‘on-side’, and to buy her silence about the earlier bribery” ([495]). Third, P&ID improperly retained Nigeria’s privileged internal legal documents that it had received during the arbitration ([496]). The two lawyers, whose conduct in relation to these documents Knowles J referred to the Bar Standards Board and the Solicitors Regulation Authority, were set to receive payments of USD850m and USD3b, respectively, if P&ID had been successful. Relying on these facts, Knowles J found that there were serious irregularities of the kind set out in section 68(2)(g) of the 1996 Act (“the award being obtained by fraud or the award or the way in which it was procured being contrary to public policy”), which caused Nigeria substantial injustice.

Comment

This case concerned a dispute arising out of a gas development project, typically a matter within the purview of international investment arbitration tribunals. However, it was argued based on a breach of contract, falling under the jurisdiction of an international commercial arbitration tribunal. These two forms of arbitration differ significantly in several aspects, most notably for the purposes of the present discussion in terms of transparency, non-party participation, and the ability and willingness of tribunals to consider wider social, economic, and political circumstances (I am not implying here that international investment tribunals take public interest consideration sufficiently seriously, only that they tend to be more open to such considerations). The inadequacy of international commercial arbitration for cases of public interest was laid bare in P&ID v Nigeria. The public only became aware of the arbitration after a change of government. The tribunal did not examine, of its own motion, whether corruption, bribery, and fraud tainted the contract and the arbitration. There was no assessment of whether wider social, economic, and political circumstances justified the finding of liability and exceptionally high damages. And two lawyers involved in the case were to make fabulous fortunes if the claimant won against a country where corruption is endemic and public officials can apparently be bribed for a few thousand dollars.

This is why Knowles J made important comments urging reform of international commercial arbitration in cases of public interest. His words are worth reproducing in full:

“582. … I hope the facts and circumstances of this case may provoke debate and reflection among the arbitration community, and also among state users of arbitration, and among other courts with responsibility to supervise or oversee arbitration. The facts and circumstances of this case, which are remarkable but very real, provide an opportunity to consider whether the arbitration process, which is of outstanding importance and value in the world, needs further attention where the value involved is so large and where a state is involved.

583. The risk is that arbitration as a process becomes less reliable, less able to find difficult but important new legal ground, and more vulnerable to fraud. The present case shows that having (as here) a tribunal of the greatest experience and expertise is not enough. Without reflection, then a case such as the present could happen again, and not reach the court.

584. With diffidence and respect, I draw attention to 4 points, which are to some degree interconnected.

(1) Drafting major commercial contracts involving a state

585. It was a complete imbalance in the contributions of the parties that enabled the GSPA [the contract] to be in the form it was. Many reading this judgment will recognise that, although in the present case bribery and corruption were behind that imbalance, it happens in other cases without bribery and corruption but simply where experience, expertise or resources are grossly unequal. This underlines the importance of professional standards and ethics in the work of contract drafting, including in the approach to other parties to the proposed contract. It is why some contributions of pro bono work by leading law firms to support some states challenged for resources…is so valuable, in the interests of their, often vulnerable, people…

(2) Disclosure or discovery of documents

586. It has been disclosure or discovery of documents that has enabled the truth to be reached in this case… In all the recent debates about where disclosure or discovery matters, this case stands a strong example for the answer that it does.

(3) Participation and representation in arbitrations over major disputes involving a state

587. Notwithstanding Nigeria’s allegations, I have not found Nigeria’s lawyers in the Arbitration to be corrupt. But the case has shown examples where legal representatives did not do their work to the standard needed, where experts failed to do their work, and where politicians and civil servants failed to ensure that Nigeria as a state participated properly in the Arbitration. The result was that the Tribunal did not have the assistance that it was entitled to expect, and which makes the arbitration process work. And Nigeria did not in the event properly consider, select and attempt admittedly difficult legal and factual arguments that the circumstances likely required. Even without the dishonest behaviour of P&ID, Nigeria was compromised.

588. But what is an arbitral tribunal to do? The Tribunal in the present case allowed time where it felt it could and applied pressure where it felt it should. Perhaps some encouragement to better engagement can be seen as well. Yet there was not a fair fight. And the Tribunal took a very traditional approach. But was the Tribunal stuck with what parties did or did not appear to bring forward? Could and should the Tribunal have been more direct and interventionist…? Should the Tribunal have taken the initiative to encourage exploration of new bounds of contract law and the law of damages that may today be required where major long term contracts are involved?

(4) Confidentiality in significant arbitrations involving a state

589. The privacy of arbitration meant that there was no public or press scrutiny of what was going on and what was not being done. When courts are concerned it is often said that the ‘open court principle’ helps keep judges up to the mark. But it also allows scrutiny of the process as a whole, and what the lawyers and other professionals are doing, and (where a state is involved) what the state is doing to address a dispute on behalf of its people. An open process allows the chance for the public and press to call out what is not right.

…

591. … unless accompanied by public visibility or greater scrutiny by arbitrators, how suitable is the process in a case such as this where what is at stake is public money amounting to a material percentage of a state’s GDP or budget? Is greater visibility in arbitrations involving a state or state owned entities part of the answer?”

These are important questions. It is a shame that the Law Commission of England and Wales does not deal with them in its recent final report on the review of the Arbitration Act 1996.

After the first successful conference in Aarhus in 2022, the next conference of the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) will be held from 6 to 8 June 2024 at the University of Wrocław, Poland. The local host will be Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska. 

The Wrocław conference will focus on Private International Law and Global Crises. The general question discussed is whether private international law can respond to crises, and if so, how. Four thematic blocks are planned, concerned respectively with war and armed conflict, the rule of law, climate change and global supply chains.

In addition, reports from the Court of Justice of the European Union, the European Court of Human Rights and the European Commission will provide insights into current challenges in the creation and application of EU PIL.

Thursday, 6 June 2024

14:00
Registration

15:30
Welcome addresses

16:00
Keynote
Mateusz Pilich, University of Warsaw

17:00
Reports from Luxembourg, Strasbourg and Brussels
Lucia Serena Rossi, Court of Justice of the European Union (tbc)
Raffaele Sabato, European Court of Human Rights
Andréas Stein, European Commission

19:00
Reception

Friday, 7 June 2024

9:00
Revisiting the Functions of Private International Law

Can Private International Law respond to crises and if yes, how?
Patrick Kinsch, University of Luxembourg
Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, University of Edinburgh

10.40
Private International Law, War and Armed Conflicts

Dealing with war-induced migration: Family law aspects
Iryna Dikovska, Taras Shevchenko National University Kyiv

Dealing with war-induced effects: Contractual relationships
Tamasz Szabados, ELTE Eötvös Loránd University

13.00
Private International Law and the Rule of Law

Protection of the Rule of Law I: Jurisdiction and applicable law
Alex Mills, University College London

Protection of the Rule of Law II: Enforcement and mutual trust
Matthias Weller, University of Bonn

15.00
Private International Law and Climate Change

Liability for climate change induced harm: Jurisdiction and Applicable law
Eduardo Alvarez Armas, Universidad Pontificia Comillas
Olivera Boskovic, Université Paris Cité (France)

17:00
General Assembly (EAPIL members only)

19:00
Reception

Saturday, 8 June 2024

9:00
Private International Law and Global Supply Chains 

Protection of human rights in global supply chains I: Jurisdiction
Rui Dias, University of Coimbra

Protection of human rights in global supply chains II: Applicable law
Klaas Eller, University of Amsterdam

Protection of human rights in global supply chains III: Ordre public
Laura Carpaneto, University of Genova

10:00
Discussion

11.00
How Can Private International Law Contribute to a More Sustainable Life?
Roundtable

12.30
Lunch

13.30
End of conference

 

The website of the conference (including the registration form) will be available soon.

Information about the University of Wrocław is here and about the city of Wrocław is here.

In November 2023, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice, with C. Lycourgos presiding and O. Spineau-Matei reporting, will hand down her decision in case C-497/22, Roompot Service. The scheduled delivery date is Thursday 16. The request for a preliminary ruling, from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), was lodged on 22 July 2022, focuses on Article 24 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The question reads:

Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?

Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour’s opinion was published on June 29. He offers a principal answer and a subsidiary one:

The first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning:

principally, that it does not apply to a contract under which holiday accommodation in a holiday park is made available by a tourism professional for short-term personal use;

in the alternative, that it covers a claim for repayment of part of the price paid following a change by one of the parties to the terms of a contract for the rental of holiday accommodation.

This double proposal relates to the fact that, according to Mr. Richard de la Tour, in light of the decision in C-289/90, Hacker, the contractual relationship in the case at hand should be classified as a ‘complex contract’ within the meaning of that case-law. By way of consequence, the provision by a tourism professional of accommodation in a holiday park for short-term personal use does not fall within the scope of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The subsidiary answer comes into play only if the Court of Justice gets nevertheless to a different conclusion, thus holds that the contract in question relates exclusively to the letting of holiday accommodation, as in the judgment in C- 8/98, Dansommer.

The next PIL event will take place on Thursday 30. Advocate General N. Emiliou’s opinion on C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte, will then be published. The main proceedings, before the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden), concern international jurisdiction regarding patents under the Brussels I bis Regulation. Here are the questions referred:

1. Is Article 24(4) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?
2. Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the Patentlagen (Patents Law; ‘the Patentlagen’), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?
3. Is Article 24(4) of the [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

A hearing on the case took place last May. The deciding chamber is composed by judges C. Lycourgos, O. Spineanu-Matei (reporting), J.C. Bonichot, S. Rodin, and L.S. Rossi.

Finally, I would like to report on the hearing on case C-632/22, Volvo (Assignation au siège d’une filiale de la défenderesse), which actually happened on October 18. The request, from the Spanish Supreme Court, was lodged on 10 October 2022. On the website of the Court of Justice it falls under the category ‘Competition’. On the merits, the problem is rather one of service of process in a cross-border setting:

1. In the circumstances surrounding the litigation relating to the trucks cartel, described in this order, is it possible to interpret Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in such a way that service of process on a parent company against which an action for damages for the harm caused by a restrictive trade practice has been brought is considered to have been properly effected when such service was effected (or attempted) at the place of business of the subsidiary company established in the State in which the legal proceedings were brought, while the parent company, which is established in another Member State, has not entered an appearance in the proceedings and has remained in default?

2. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is that interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter compatible with Article 53 of the Charter, in the light of the case-law of the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on the service of process on parent companies established in another Member State in disputes relating to the trucks cartel?

The background of the request is easy to understand. Following publication of the Decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2016 (Case AT. 39824 – Trucks), in Spain thousands of proceedings for damages have been lodged by purchasers of vehicles affected by the trucks cartel. Almost all actions were brought by small or medium undertakings which had purchased a very small number of trucks, or even just one truck, in the period in which the cartel operated. None of the undertakings (parent companies) penalised by the European Commission has its registered office in Spain. Given that, in the majority of the proceedings, the amount claimed is not very high, the costs involved in having to translate the application and, where necessary, any annexes, may be disproportionately high. To avoid such costs and the time delay entailed by the necessary international judicial cooperation, the applicants in those proceedings frequently ask for the service of process at the business address of the subsidiary company in Spain, even though the defendant parent company is established in another Member State.

The preliminary reference has been assigned to the Fifth Chamber (judges E. Regan, M. Ilešič, I. Jarukaitis, D. Gratsias, and, exceptionally, K. Lenaerts), which will supported by the opinion of Advocate General M. Szpunar.

This is the first of a series of posts which will present how the issue of the applicable law to the time limit to enforce or recognise foreign judgments is addressed in comparative private international law.

In a judgment of 2 August 2022, the Swiss Federal Tribunal ruled that the law governing the time limit applicable to foreign judgments is that of the state of origin of the foreign judgment.

Background

The case was concerned with the recognition in Switzerland of an English judgment delivered in 2013.

After insolvency proceedings were opened in Switzerland against the judgment debtor, the jugdment creditor lodged a claim in the insolvency proceedings based on the English judgment.  Another creditor challenged the lodging of the claim on the ground that the English judgment was time barred.

The parties disagreed on whether the applicable statute of limitations was the Swiss Statue, which provides a 10 time limit, or the English statute, which provides a 6 year time limit.

Judgment

The issue of the applicable law to the time limit to enforce foreign judgments was debated among Swiss scholars. In particular, Swiss scholars debated whether art. 137 of the Swiss code of obligations, which provides a specific time limit of 10 years for claims confirmed by a judgment, applied to foreign judgments.

The Federal Tribunal rules that it does not. The starting point of its analysis is the Swiss  choice of law rule governing time limitations. Article 148 of the Swiss federal statute on private international law provides that “the law applicable to a claim governs time limitations applicable to it and its extinction“. In other words, time limitations are substantive in nature under Swiss private international law, as they are in general in civil law jurisdictions. As a result, the applicable law is the law governing the relevant claim, and not the law of the forum.

The determination of the relevant claim, however, is not obvious, and was indeed debated among Swiss scholars. A first view is that the claim is the one made in the foreign proceedings and decided by the foreign court. The applicable time limit would thus depend on the law applied on the merits by the foreign court. A second view is that the claim is the foreign judgment itself. The application of Article 148 would thus lead to the application of the law court of origin.

The Federal Tribunal endorses the second view. It rules that the relevant claim is the foreign judgment, because judgments are constitutive in nature. Although the Federal Tribunal is pretty concise on this point, it seems to mean that judgments create autonomous titles, which are distinct from the claims made originally in the proceedings on the merits. As a result, the Federal Tribunal rules that the applicable time limit was s. 24 of the English Limitation Act 1980.

The judgment of the Federal Tribunal also addresses several issues related to characterisation. The first is that it was necessary to determine which rules under English law corresponded to the concept of prescription under Swiss law. It was not hard to conclude that these were the rules found in the Limitation Act. The second is the Tribunal confirms that whether time limitations are characterised as procedural or substantive in nature under English law is irrelevant: characterisation for choice of law purposes is an issue for the forum.

Relevance of the Lugano Convention?

It is interesting to note that the recognition of the English judgment was governed by the Lugano Convention. The issue of whether this could have influenced any of the above was not raised.

The third issue of 2023 of the Dutch Journal of Private International Law (Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht) is out. It features the following contributions.

An editorial by M.J. de Rooij titled Het leed van de circulerende Unieburger en het Europese begrip van de favor divortii (The distress situation of the European citizens moving abroad and the European concept of favor divortii), freely available here.

C. Vanleenhove, The Hague Judgments Convention versus national regimes of recognition and enforcement: a comparison between the Convention and the Belgian Code of Private International Law (available here)

The adoption of the Hague Judgments Convention marks a landmark step in the Judgments Project that the Hague Conference on Private International Law has undertaken since 1992 in the context of transnational disputes in civil and commercial matters. The creation of a uniform set of core rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in a cross-border civil and commercial setting promotes effective access to justice and facilitates multilateral trade, investment, and mobility. As far as Belgium is concerned, in the relationship with other non-EU Contracting States the Convention will replace the Code of Private International Law that since 2004 has governed the recognition and enforcement of third State judgments in Belgium. The entry into force of the Convention calls for a comparison of the Convention’s regime with that of the Code of Private International Law. As the two instruments fall within the same ballpark in terms of their openness and given the Convention’s deferral to more favourable domestic rules, the Convention adds another avenue through which a successful party can enforce its foreign judgment in Belgium. From the Belgian perspective the potential circulation of Belgian judgments in other Contracting States with stringent national rules on enforcement perhaps constitutes the most considerable benefit of the Convention.

G. van Calster, Brussles Ia and the Hague Judgments Convention: a note on non-domiciled parties and on reflexive jurisdictional rules

The process that led to the Hague Judgment Convention was inspired by the ‘Brussels regime’(the EU’s approach to encouraging the free movement of judgments in civil and commercial matters). In the present note I explore two likely areas of tension between Brussels Ia and the Hague Convention: the limited circumstances where non-EU domiciled defendants will nevertheless be captured by the EU jurisdictional rules; and the developing ‘reflexive effect’ of exclusive jurisdictional gateway. I suggest that the EU would do well seriously to consider a reflexive application of its exclusive jurisdictional rules, and that the current review of Brussels Ia would be a good opportunity to do so.

A.A.H van Hoek and F. van Overbeeke, Over open eindes en nauwere banden: a nieuw hoofdstuk in de Van den Bosch/Silo-Tank-saga (About open endings and closer ties: A new chapter in the Van den Bosch/Silo-Tank-saga).

In this brief contribution we pay attention to the latest judgment of the Dutch Supreme Court in the protracted litigation over the employment conditions of Hungarian truck drivers who perform international transport operations on behalf of a Dutch logistics company while being officially employed by a Hungarian sister company of the Dutch firm. The case led to the CJEU judgment FNV/Van den Bosch, C-815/18, ECLI:EU:C:2020:976 (NIPR 2021-55) where the application of the Posting of Workers Directive to this scenario was discussed. The current case pertains to the law that is applicable to the individual employment contracts under Article 8 Rome I.

We comment on the problem of identifying the place from where the work is habitually performed in the case of highly mobile transport operations, the root of which lays in pertaining EU caselaw. We also discuss the fact that the Dutch Supreme court applied the criteria mentioned in the Schlecker case (C-64/12, ECLI:EU:C:2013:551, NIPR 2013-347) in a strict manner, without taking the specific context of the Schlecker case fully into account. Finally, we recommend that the Court of Appeal of Amsterdam (to which the case has been referred) should submit further preliminary questions to the CJEU: 1. Should the reason why workers are covered by the social security system of their home country be taken into account when weighing the relevance of this criterion – and more particularly, what relevance does the insurance status have in transport cases?; 2. Which factors should (or may) be taken into account to establish a closer connection when the applicable law is determined on the basis of the establishment through which the worker was employed?

The second and the third issue of 2023 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) are out.

The second issue features three contributions.

Yuriko Haga, Avatars, Personalities in the Metaverse: Introductory Analysis on Conflict-of-Laws

When people perform various activities in the metaverse, another world on the Internet, they make avatars as their “proxy”, representing their personality. However, the connection between an avatar and its user is often unclear. In fact, avatars do not necessarily resemble to their user’s figure or face because people can decide its appearance at their disposal. The first question thus arises as to whether the attack on an avatar can be assimilated to an attack on the personality of a user, a person in real world. An avatar should be deemed part of the online personality of its user, and, considering the existing theory of personality rights, it is not completely separate from the person in the real world. Therefore, an attack brought against an avatar can deemed more or less an infringement against the user’s personality. The second question is then how to select the applicable law to such cases. An infringement of personality rights in the metaverse is by nature “international” because users can connect to that virtual “world” from all corners of the world. This leads to a difficulty in determining the place that the connecting factor designates. This paper examines the applicability of actual Japanese conflict-of-laws rule to issues occurring in the metaverse to show its boundary. The traditional theory posits to apply national laws to resolve legal issues, but the world of metaverse is often governed by rules of its own. It follows that the conflict-of-laws theory should now consider the applicability of the rules of other communities, such as the metaverse..

Pietro Franzina, La Cassazione muta indirizzo su Incoterms e luogo della consegna dei beni (The Court of Cassation Changes Approach on Incoterms and the Place of Delivery of the Goods)

The ruling by the Joint Chambers of the Italian Court of Cassation examined in this paper (Order No 11346 of 2 May 2023) innovates the Court’s case law regarding the relevance of Incoterms to the determination of the place of delivery of goods for the purposes of the rule of special jurisdiction in Art 7 No 1 of Regulation EU No 1215/2012 (Brussels I-bis). The Court of Cassation has eventually aligned its views on this issue to the interpretation provided by the Court of Justice in Electrosteel, for it acknowledged that the place of delivery must be determined, as a rule, in accordance with the agreement of the parties, whereas, on previous occasions, the Court of Cassation had rather expressed the opinion that the place of delivery normally coincides with the place of the final destination of the goods, and that only by way of exception (and subject to strict standards) the parties should be permitted to agree on a different place of delivery. The Joint Chambers of the Court of Cassation have also asserted, again realigning their approach to that of the Court of Justice, that the Incoterm «EXW» is not merely concerned with the allocation between the parties of the costs and risks of the transaction, but also entails an agreement as to the place of delivery. The ruling, the paper contends, must be welcomed, since it corrects a questionable approach that the Court of Cassation has followed for a long time. Nevertheless, the decision is not entirely convincing. One reason for criticism regards the fact that, like previous rulings of the Court of Cassation, the decision fails to properly distinguish between agreements on the place of performance and choice-of-court agreements. As observed by the Court of Justice in Zelger, only the latter are submitted to special conditions of form, imposed by the Regulation. For their part, agreements on the place of performance need to be concluded in writing only if the law applicable to the contract so provides, which is relatively uncommon. The Court of Cassation, it is suggested, should reassess the formalistic approach it has followed regarding Incoterms, if it is to fully comply with the indications of the Court of Justice.

Federica Sartori, Sull’ammissibilità di un’eterointegrazione tra legge straniera e lex fori in materia di risarcimento del danno non patrimoniale (On the Admissibility of Hetero-Integration between Foreign Law and Lex Fori in Matters of Compensation for Non-Pecuniary Damage)

This article focuses on an order issued by the Italian Supreme Court over the interpretative question about the possible integration of the foreign applicable law with the lex fori for the compensation of non-pecuniary damage. Through the analysis of opposing legal reasonings, this article examines the legal and jurisprudential bases of each thesis, leaning towards a negative solution in the present case according to the principle of the global application of foreign law, while awaiting for the Court to give its final decision in a public hearing on this relevant issue.

Two contributions appear in the third issue.

Pietro Franzina, Un nuovo diritto internazionale privato della protezione degli adulti: le proposte della Commissione europea e gli sviluppi attesi in Italia (A New Private International Law on the Protection of Adults: The European Commission’s Proposals and the Developments Anticipated in Italy)

The European Commission has presented on 31 May 2023 two proposals aimed to enhance, in cross-border situations, the protection of adults who are not in a position to protect their interests due to an impairment or the insufficiency of their personal faculties. One proposal is for a Council decision that would authorise the Member States to ratify, in the interest of the Union, the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the international protection of adults, if they have not done so yet. The decision, if adopted, would turn the Convention into the basic private international law regime in this area, common to all Member States. The other proposal is for a regulation the purpose of which is to improve, in the relationships between the Member States, the cooperation ensured by the Convention. The paper illustrates the objects of the two proposals and the steps that led to their presentation. The key provisions of the Hague Convention are examined, as well as the solutions envisaged in the proposed regulation to improve the functioning of the Convention. The paper also deals with the bill, drafted by the Italian Government and submitted to the Italian Parliament a few days before the Commission’s proposals were presented, to prepare for the ratification of the Convention by Italy and provide for its implementation in the domestic legal order. The bill, it is argued, requires extensive reconsideration as far as the domestic implementation of the Convention is concerned. Alternative proposals are discussed in the paper in this regard.

Riccardo Rossi, Reflections on Choice-of-Court Agreements in Favour of Third States under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012

The article deals with the absence of a provision addressing choice-of-court agreements in favour of third States under Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (“Brussels Ia Regulation”). The CJ case law and the present structure of the Regulation leave no room for the long-debated argument of effet réflexe. In light of Arts 33 and 34 (and Recital No 24), enforcing such agreements is now limited to the strict respect of the priority rule in the trans-European dimension. The first part of the article deals with the consequences of such a scheme. Namely, forum running, possible interferences with the free circulation of judgments within the EU pursuant to Art 45(1)(d), and inconsistencies with the 2019 Hague Convention. In its second part, from a de lege ferenda perspective, the article examines the most delicate issues raised by the need for introducing a new provision enforcing jurisdiction agreements in favour of third States: from the jurisdiction over the validity of such agreements, to the applicable law, to the weight to be given to the overriding mandatory provisions of the forum. Finally, it proposes a draft of two new provisions to be implemented in the presently-discussed review of the Brussels Ia Regulation.

Claimants suing multinational enterprises for business-related human rights abuses have recently had a good run in England. The Supreme Court cleared the jurisdictional hurdles for the claimants in Vedanta and Okpabi. This was followed by the Court of Appeal judgment in Begum and the High Court judgment in Josiya, which opened the door for value chain litigation. In Fundão dam, the Court of Appeal allowed a claim brought by over 200,000 Brazilians in the aftermath of the collapse of a dam in Brazil to proceed (meanwhile, the number of claimants has grown to 700,000, who are seeking £36bn in damages). And in Bravo, the High Court held that the law of a civil law country (Colombia) did not preclude the possibility of liability on the part of a parent company registered in England for the activities of its Colombian subsidiary. Although in Jallah (here and here), the courts held that a claim following an oil spill off the Nigerian coast was time-barred.

Business and human rights cases have even made their way to Scotland. The Court of Session (Outer House) allowed a claim brought by over 1,000 Kenyan tea pickers against a company registered in Scotland to proceed in Campbell v James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd.

Many other business and human rights cases, some of them quite innovative, are currently pending in English courts. All of this has cemented London’s reputation as a (and probably the) global centre for business and human rights litigation.

Ever since Brexit, however, there has been a sense that this type of litigation is running on borrowed time. The UK’s withdrawal from the Brussels system has expanded the use of forum non conveniens and, consequently, has significantly raised the risk of claims failing on jurisdictional grounds.

Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd, in which the High Court (Deputy High Court Judge Sheldon KC) handed down its judgment on 19 October 2023, is the first post-Brexit case where this risk has materialised.

Facts

Dyson is a multinational enterprise specialising in designing and manufacturing premium household appliances. Its founder and chairman, Sir James Dyson, was a prominent Brexiteer. That is why he caused quite a stir when he announced in early 2019 that his company would move its headquarters to Singapore, although he stated that this move was ‘not linked to the departure from EU’. Dyson’s operational headquarters is now in Singapore, but its registered headquarters is still in England. Dyson has an elaborate value chain. Many of its suppliers are based in East Asia.

Two of Dyson’s suppliers are the Malaysian companies ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd. The claimants, who are migrant workers from Bangladesh and Nepal, were employed by the suppliers in their Malaysian factories. They allege that they were victims of various human rights abuses, including violations of labour standards by the suppliers and violations of human rights directly committed by the Malaysian police in which the suppliers were complicit. The claimants commenced proceedings against three companies that are part of the Dyson group, two of which are domiciled in England and one in Malaysia. No proceedings were commenced against the suppliers and the Malaysian police.

The claim was brought in negligence and unjust enrichment. Negligence is a well-known legal basis for remedying business-related human rights violations. The claim in this case builds on Begum and Josiya. The defendants’ duty of care is claimed to have originated from their control over the manufacturing operations and the working conditions at the suppliers’ factories, and out of their public declarations – in mandatory policies and standards – regarding upholding human rights in their value chain. Unjust enrichment is a relatively novel legal basis in this context. The essence of the unjust enrichment claim is that the defendants obtained an unjust benefit as a result of claimants’ circumstances. The claim was brought on 27 May 2022, which is well after the Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020. The Brussels I bis Regulation, therefore, did not apply.

The question before the court was one of jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction over the English companies on the basis of their presence in England. The English companies, however, asked the court to stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens. The claimants sought permission to serve the claim form on the Malaysian company out of the jurisdiction. The defendants had not made an application to strike out the claim, nor had they made an application for summary judgment. The court, therefore, assumed that the claim was arguable and had a reasonable prospect of success. The claimants relied on the necessary and proper party jurisdictional gateway in relation to the Malaysian company. But was England the proper place in which to bring the claim? The Malaysian company sought to set aside the service of the claim form on the basis that England was not the forum conveniens.

The defendants made a number of undertakings to the court as to how they would conduct the proceedings if their application succeeded and the claim was brought in Malaysia. In essence, they undertook to submit to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts, to assist the claimants with some of the disbursements and costs, to agree to remote attendance at a hearing and the trial in Malaysia, and not to challenge the lawfulness of any success fee arrangement between the claimants and their Malaysian lawyers.

Judgment

The jurisdictional question was about forum non conveniens. Referring to Spiliada, the court said that the question had to be addressed in two stages. First, was England or Malaysia the natural forum for the litigation? Second, if Malaysia was the natural forum, where there any special circumstances by reason of which justice requires the trial to take place in England? In other words, was there a real risk, based on cogent evidence, that substantial justice would not be obtainable in Malaysia?

The court held that Malaysia was indeed the natural forum. The following factors in particular pointed to this conclusion: Malaysian law applied and the case raised novel points of law; and Malaysia was the centre of gravity of the case due to the harm and the underlying mistreatment occurring there. Interestingly, the availability of remote hearings and communication technology meant that the location of parties and witnesses was not regarded by the court as a particularly important factor.

The court then proceeded to Stage 2. It held that there was no reason for the trial to occur in England. The court found no cogent evidence that: migrant workers had no access to justice in Malaysia; there were no suitably qualified lawyers with necessary expertise who could team up in Malaysia; the proceedings in Malaysia would take too long; the disbursements to be paid by the claimants in Malaysia would be significant; the claimants could not find representation in Malaysia; the defendants or their lawyers would act outside the law, unethically or unprofessionally in Malaysia; it was inappropriate to rely on the defendants’ undertakings; the gaps in funding in Malaysia could not be filled by NGOs; and that partial contingency fee arrangements were unlawful or impracticable. In other words, there was no cogent evidence that the claimants would not obtain substantial justice in Malaysia.

Comment

Dyson is significant because it illustrates the effects of Brexit on business and human rights litigation in England. The combination of general jurisdiction under Brussels I bis and the CJEU’s judgment in Owusu no longer offers a safe jurisdictional haven for victims of business-related human rights abuses. It is clear from Dyson and the cases cited above that the natural forum is almost always going to be in the country where abuses and direct damage occur. There are cases, like Vedanta, where it is possible to prove that substantial justice cannot be obtained in the natural foreign forum. But, as Dyson shows, achieving this is difficult. Many alleged human rights abusers will benefit from this and, thus, collect a handsome ‘Brexit dividend’.

Nevertheless, Dyson has a silver lining. The court assumed that the claim was arguable and had a reasonable prospect of success because the defendants had not made an application to strike out the claim, nor had they made an application for summary judgment (see [18]). The judge reiterated, at [141], that it was reasonable to assume that the claimants had good prospects of success in their claims and would obtain substantial damages if successful. Furthermore, the claimants are likely to appeal and it is not inconceivable that the Court of Appeal might disagree with the judge on the forum non conveniens issue.

The Roma Tre University and the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart have jointly organised a conference titled The Italian Scholars and The Hague Academy of International Law – A retrospective on the occasion of the Academy’s Centennial Anniversary, under the patronage of the Italian Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Hague Academy itself.

The conference, due to take place on 30 November 2023 in Milan, at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, will discuss the contribution provided by Italian scholars to the development of both public and private international law through courses delivered at the Academy since 1923.

A final roundtable will be devoted to the challenges that face, today, those teaching and researching public and private international law, including the law of international arbitration.

Speakers include: Giulio Bartolini, Tullio Treves, Luca Radicati di Brozolo, Robert Kolb, Sergio Marchisio, Marina Castellaneta, Francesco Salerno, Sara Tonolo, Pasquale De Sena, Beatrice Bonafè, Annamaria Viterbo, Paolo Palchetti, Chiara Tuo, Giuseppe Nesi, Jean-Marc Thouvenin, Attila Tanzi, Giuditta Cordero-Moss, Massimo Benedettelli, and Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm.

A detailed programme can be found here.

The working languages will be English, French and Italian, with Italian presentations being simultaneously translated into English.

Attendance is on-site only. Prior registration is required through the form available here.

As announced on this blog, the inaugural edition of the European Association of Private International Law Winter School will take place in Como between 12 and 16 February 2024.

Organised by the University of Insubria, in cooperation with the Jagiellonian University in Kraków, the University of Murcia and the University Osijek, this year’s edition of the Winter School will be devoted to Personal Status and Family Relationships.

The lectures, in English, will discuss a range of issues relating to the cross-border continuity of status, filiation, and family relationships between adults. Both Hague conventions and EU legislative measures will be examined, with an approach combining theory and practice. There will be ample room for interaction with (and among) the participants.

The teaching staff consists of Silvia Marino (University of Insubria, director of the School), Laura Carpaneto (University of Genova), Javier Carrascosa González (Universidad de Murcia), Ester di Napoli (University of Ferrara), Cristina González Beilfuss (Unversity of Barcelona), Satu Heikkilä (LL.D., Administrative Law Judge), Katja Karjalainen (University of Eastern Finland), Máire Ní Shúilleabháin (University College Dublin), Etienne Pataut (University of Paris 1), Paula Poretti (University of Osijek), Nadia Rusinova (Hague University), Raffaele Sabato (Judge of the European Court Human Rights), Ian Sumner (Tilburg University), Camelia Toader (former-Judge of the Court of Justice), Ioan-Luca Vlad (University of Bucharest), Michael Wilderspin (EU Commission Legal Advisor), Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University), Mirela Župan (University of Osijek).

The detailed programme can be found here.

The School is aimed primarily at law graduates, law practitioners and PhD candidates with an interest in private international law, EU law and human rights law.

Those interested in attending the School are invited to submit their application through this form before  25 January 2024.

Admission fees are as follows: early bird (by 12 December 2023): 180 Euros; ordinary: 250 Euros.

A reduced fee of 80 Euros is offered to one student from any of the Universities that are partners in the project  and one for a Ukrainian student.

For information: eapilws@gmail.com.

On 12 October 2023, the Court of Justice of the EU, following an Opinion of the Advocate General Sánchez-Bordona, handed down its long-awaited judgment in OP (C-21/22). The case concerns the application of the Succession Regulation to third States’ nationals, where a bilateral agreement is in place between the Member State whose authorities are seised and the third State in question.

The preliminary question originates from Poland, and represents the second attempt to seise the Court of Justice of the issue. In the OKR case, C-387/20, a similar question was raised by a notary public but the Court held that the request for a preliminary ruling was inadmissible.

Facts of the Case and Proceedings in Poland

OP is a Ukrainian national who resides in Poland and co-owns an immovable property there. OP wanted to draw up a notarial will in Poland choosing Ukrainian law as applicable to her future succession. The notary refused to do so on the ground that Article 37 of the 1993 Poland-Ukraine Bilateral Agreement does not provide for such possibility. In fact this Article states that:

Legal relationships in matters relating to the succession of movable property shall be governed by the law of the Contracting Party of which the deceased was a national at the time of his or her death.

Legal relationships in matters relating to the succession of immovable property shall be governed by the law of the Contracting Party in the territory of which that property is situated. (…)

OP brought an action before a court in Poland against the notary’s refusal. She argued that the 1993 Poland-Ukrainian Bilateral Agreement does not govern the choice of applicable law, and that, accordingly, a choice is admissible under Article 22 of the Succession Regulation. Article 75(1) of the Succession Regulation, which provides that the regulation does “not affect the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are party at the time of adoption of this Regulation and which concern matters covered by this Regulation” does not prevent such a choice, she added, given that the 1993 Poland-Ukraine Bilateral Agreement is silent as to party autonomy in succession matters.

Put shortly, the view submitted by OP was that Article 21(1) and (2) of the Succession Regulation correspond to Article 37 of the Agreement, whereas Article 22 of the Succession Regulation, which allows for the choice of national law of the deceased, does not have any counterpart in the Agreement. As a result, Article 22 of the Succession Regulation is applicable (and enables the person concerned to make a choice of law) no matter whether the Bilateral Agreement takes precedence over the Succession Regulation. The domestic court, having doubts on the above view, submitted to questions to the Court of Justice of the EU.

Preliminary Questions and Answers of the Court

The first preliminary question was a straightforward one to answer. The domestic court wanted to know whether Article 22 of the Succession Regulation means that a third-country national residing in a Member State of the EU may choose the law of that third State as the law governing future succession case.

The Court of Justice answered in positive stating that a third-country national residing in a Member State of the EU may choose the law of that third State as the law governing his or her succession as a whole (OP, para. 24)

The answer to the second question seems far more interesting and important for the understanding and applying of the Succession Regulation.

The referring court asked whether Article 75(1) of the Succession Regulation, read in conjunction with Article 22 means that, where a Member State of the EU has concluded, before the adoption of the regulation, a bilateral agreement with a third State which designates the law applicable to succession and does not expressly provide for the possibility of choosing another law, a national of that third State, residing in the Member State in question, may choose the law of that third State to govern his or her succession as a whole.

In other words, the Polish court wanted to know whether OP may choose Ukrainian law as applicable to her succession in accordance with Article 22 of the Succession Regulation, while drafting her will in front of a notary public in Poland, even though 1993 Poland-Ukrainian Bilateral Agreement does contain conflict of law rules relating to succession and does not provide for any party autonomy to that respect.

The Court of Justice answered that Article 75(1) of the Succession Regulation read in conjunction with Article 22, in circumstances such as those of the case examined, does not exclude that a national of a third State, residing in the EU Member State, may be barred from choosing the law of that third State to govern his or her succession as a whole. The above is true provided that the Member State of the EU in question has concluded (before the adoption of that regulation) a bilateral agreement with that third State which designates the law applicable to succession and does not expressly provide for the possibility of choosing another law (see: OP, para. 38). Hence, theoretically, the Succession Regulation does not preclude a situation in which a Ukrainian citizen might not be able to choose Ukrainian law as applicable while drafting a will in front of a notary public in Poland.

Comments on the Judgment

In order to know whether the Succession Regulation applies one must examine its scopes, namely: (1) material one – it  covers succession to the estates of deceased persons (Article 1(1)); (2) territorial one –  it covers EU Member States, with the exception of Ireland and Denmark (Recitals 40, 41, the UK also never applied it) and (3) temporal one – it applies as of 17 August 2015 to the succession cases of persons deceased starting from that day (Art. 83(1) and 84 Succession Regulation). The Succession Regulation applies to succession cases covered by its scopes irrespective nationality or habitual residence of the deceased and irrespective where the assets of the estate are located. Hence, as rightly underlined by the Court of Justice, any person may choose applicable law in accordance with Article 22 of the Succession Regulation (not only an EU citizen). This follows also from the wording of Article 21 which provides for universal application of the conflict of law rules of the Succession Regulation.

Hence, the clou here lies not in the Chapter III “Applicable Law” of the Succession Regulation, but the 1993 Poland-Ukraine Bilateral Agreement. The Court of Justice therefore explained the meaning of Article 75(1) of the Succession Regulation. It underlined that where a Member State is a party to a bilateral agreement concluded with a third State (before the entry into force of the Succession Regulation), which contains provisions laying down rules applicable to succession, it is those provisions which, in principle, are intended to apply, instead of these of the Succession Regulation (OP, para. 27). In view of the Court of Justice, the Succession Regulation does not override these provisions simply because they do not provide for party autonomy and possibility of choosing applicable law by the testator (OP, para. 33).

It should be noted, however, that the Court of Justice while explaining that the bilateral agreement takes precedence before the Succession Regulation uses the expression “in principle” (see: OP, para. 27). Hence, this conclusion is of general, abstract character. It applies to every bilateral agreement and not necessary to this particular one and this particular case. Further, the Court of Justice states that “the scheme” of Succession Regulation “does not preclude a situation where, under a bilateral agreement concluded between a Member State and a third State (…), a third-country national residing in the Member State bound by that bilateral agreement does not have the right to choose the law applicable (…)” (OP, para. 37).

Nowhere in the judgment does the Court of Justice discuss the exact content of the 1993 Poland-Ukraine Bilateral Agreement. It does not say that 1993 Poland-Ukraine Bilateral Agreement excludes the possibility of choosing applicable law. It is left for the domestic court to analyze 1993 Poland-Ukraine Bilateral Agreement and finally decide.

The Hague Convention of 15 November 1965 on the service abroad of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters is currently in force for more than 80 States.

All the Member States of the European Union are bound by the Convention. Most of them were parties to the Convention well before the Union was given the power to adopt measures concerning judicial cooperation in civil matters. Others joined afterwards.

Austria and Malta were the latest to do so. They respectively ratified and acceded to the Convention based on a Council Decision of 10 March 2016 whereby they were authorised (and in fact requested) to do so “in the interest of the Union”. The latter expression is used in cases where the Union considers it has the power to conclude an international agreement, but the agreement in question fails to include a REIO clause or is otherwise only open to States, meaning that the Union has no other option than to join the agreement through its Member States.

The Council Decision of 2016 was adopted on the assumption that the Union has external competence with regard to the Convention “in so far as its provisions affect the rules laid down in certain provisions of Union legislation or in so far as the accession of additional Member States to the Convention alters the scope of certain provisions of Union legislation”.

One such provision is Article 28 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Article 28(2) stipulates that the court seised “shall stay the proceedings so long as it is not shown that the defendant has been able to receive the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document in sufficient time to enable him to arrange for his defence, or that all necessary steps have been taken to this end”. It is added in (3) that Article 19 of the 2007 Service Regulation (bow Article 22 of the Recast Service Regulation) applies instead of (2) where service occurred under the latter Regulation, and, in (4), that were the Union’s rules are not applicable, then Article 15 of the Hague Service Convention shall apply, “if the document instituting the proceedings or an equivalent document had to be transmitted abroad pursuant to that Convention”.

The stated existence of a Union’s external competence in this area has not prevented other uncertainties from arising. Specifically, the question arose of whether it is for the Union (and the Union alone) to take a stance on subsequent accessions to the Convention by third States.

Pursuant to Article 28 of the Convention, any State not represented at the Tenth Session of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (which took place in 1964) may accede to the Convention after the latter’s entry into force on the international plane. The Convention will then enter into force for such a State “in the absence of any objection from a State, which has ratified the Convention before such deposit, notified to the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands within a period of six months after the date on which the said Ministry has notified it of such accession”.

Put in another way, the Hague Service Convention offers the States that are already bound by it to veto the establishment of relations under the Convention between any acceding State and all of the Contracting States. So far, this “right of veto” has never been used in practice.

The Council of the European Union has recently discussed whether it is for the Union, or rather its Member States, individually, to decide about the line to take regarding the accession of Singapore to the Convention, which occurred on 16 May 2023.

Member States had apparently no difficulties in agreeing that there were no grounds, in substance, to issue such an objection. However, procedurally, while the majority took the view that the decision belonged to the Union, two States – France and the Czech Republic – expressed doubts in this regard, and abstained from the vote.

In a joint statement, France and Czechia noted that the other Member States agree that the Hague Service Convention falls under EU exclusive external competence, pursuant to Article 3(2) TFEU, but argued, for their part, that, “since the provisions of the Hague Convention on service do not apply in relations between Member States but only when a third State is involved, the possibility of affecting or modifying the common EU rules is doubtful”.

France and Czechia did not intend to prevent the Council from adopting an EU-wide approach to the accession of Singapore, but stressed they would not consider such a decision “as a precedent for any other accessions to the Hague Service Convention and other measures of the European Union that aim to regulate comparable subject matters, where exclusive external competence of the European Union could play a role but has not been agreed upon by the Member States”.

On 13 October 2023, Coreper issued a recommendation to approve the line to be taken regarding the accession of Singapore (the recommendation being that no objection should be raised), while acknowledging that the recommendation “is without prejudice to the procedure to be followed in the future to establish the European Union’s position concerning the accession of third States to such Hague Conventions which have the same accession mechanism as the 1965 Hague Convention”.

The issue, it is believed, may resurface, in particular, with respect to the Hague Convention of 18 March 1970 on the taking of evidence abroad in civil or commercial matters. The latter Convention, too, has special rules on the acceptance of accessions (Article 39), although their design and practical implications depart from the corresponding provisions of the Hague Service Convention.

Where England is not the natural forum for the trial of the substantive dispute, the English court should not, as a matter of policy or law, restrain proceedings in one foreign jurisdiction where the purpose of the injunction is to favour proceedings in another jurisdiction. In other words…it is no part of the function of the English courts to act as an international policeman in matters of this kind.

This well-known principle, set out by the House of Lords in Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel, does not apply to arbitration. This is the gist of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Nugee LJ, Snowden LJ and Falk LJ) of 11 October 2023 in Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 1144.

The facts are simple. A German bank issued a guarantee in favour of a Russian company, which was governed by English law and provided for arbitration in Paris. The Russian company commenced court proceedings in Russia. The German bank sought an anti-suit injunction (ASI) in England to restrain the Russian proceedings. English courts have the power to issue injunctions under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ‘in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so’. No such injunction could be obtained in France. Should the English court grant an ASI under these circumstances?

Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal gave a positive answer to this question. The court reasoned as follows. There is a serious issue to be tried on the merits. The claim falls within the gateway in Practice Direction 6B para 3.1(6)(c), namely a claim in respect of a contract governed by English law. ‘It is the policy of English law that parties to contracts should adhere to them, and in particular that parties to an arbitration agreement, who have thereby impliedly agreed not to litigate elsewhere, should not do so.’ ([38]) ‘Hence the Court will usually grant an ASI to enforce an arbitration agreement unless there is good reason not to’. ([39]) Since French courts cannot grant an ASI and French law ‘has no objection in principle to (and will recognise) the grant of an ASI’ in a case like this ([40]), England is the proper forum in which to bring the claim ‘for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice’ (Spiliada). Consequently, all the conditions for service out were met. From this point, it was plain sailing. The court regarded ‘the application for an interim ASI as quite straightforward’ because the evidence showed that French law had no objection to this course of action ([42]). Just in case the Russian proceedings were not discontinued, the court also granted an anti-enforcement injunction.

Following the UKSC judgment in Enka, the arbitration agreement in Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC was governed by English law. The authorities on which the Court of Appeal relied to support its argument about the policy of English law (UKSC/UKHL judgments in Ust-Kamenogorsk, West Tankers, Enka; EWCA judgment in The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87) all concerned arbitration agreements governed by English law. The court also relied on the English law of equity concerning the enforcement of contracts governed by English law ([38]-[39], [42]). This indicates that Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC is most likely confined to arbitration agreements governed by English law (compare the outcomes in two similar cases, which provides support for this statement: Commerzbank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWHC 2510 (Comm) (arbitration agreement governed by English law; ASI granted) and G v R [2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm) (arbitration agreement governed by French law; England not the forum conveniens; ASI not granted)).

But the Court of Appeal’s broad statements of principles leave the door open for the argument that upholding all arbitration agreements is a general principle of English law and that, consequently, English courts should restrain foreign court proceedings commenced in breach of arbitration agreements, regardless of their governing law and arbitral seat, as long as the breaching party is present in England or the claim falls within a jurisdictional gateway, ASIs are not available in the courts of the seat, and the country of the seat has no objection in principle to ASIs. This would be a considerable extension of the powers of English courts and an unwelcome development.

In its Communication Ensuring justice in the EU – a European judicial training strategy for 2021-2024, the European Commission underlined the importance of European judicial training opportunities that enable legal practitioners to understand the role of EU law in their daily practice and to ensure that the rights and obligations stemming from EU law are respected in national judicial proceedings.

The European Institute for Public Administration (EIPA) and ICF are working to create and develop a series of e-learning courses (e-Capsules) for European practitioners on EU Civil Justice, Criminal Justice and Fundamental Rights for the European Commission Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers (DG JUST).

In order to identify the training needs and knowledge gaps all legal professionals within the 27 EU Member States are struggling with in the area of EU fundamental rights, civil justice, and criminal justice, EIPA and ICF have designed an online survey.

Those with an interest in these areas are invited to participate in the online survey that is available here in English, French, and German. The survey is meant to take approximately 10 minutes and can be completed over more than one session, if needed.

The survey is open until 31 October 2023.

Alex Mills and I are pleased to announce that, alongside the UCL Faculty of Laws Research Scholarships which are open to all research areas, this year we have an additional scholarship specifically for doctoral research in private international law. The scholarship covers the cost of tuition fees (home status fees) and provides a maintenance stipend per annum for full time study at the standard UKRI rate. The annual stipend for 2023/24 (as a guide) was £20,622. The recipient of the scholarship will be expected to contribute to teaching private international law in the Faculty for up to 6 hours per week on average, and this work is remunerated in addition to the stipend received for the scholarship.

We particularly welcome applications with research proposals that fall within our areas of interest, which are broad and include the following sub-topics within private international law: protection of weaker parties; environmental protection; business and human rights; sustainable development; digital technology; party autonomy; the relationship between public and private international law; private international law theory and/or methodology; colonialism; and private international law issues in arbitration and foreign relations law.

More information about UCL Faculty of Laws, our PhD programme, the process of applying and the scholarship is available here, here and here. Applicants should apply through the normal UCL Faculty of Laws PhD application process. All applicants within the relevant subject areas will be considered, but we recommend that applicants also specify in their application that they wish to be considered for these scholarships. The deadline date for applications for the 2024/25 academic year is 16 November 2023.

Prospective students are welcome to get in touch with either myself at u.grusic@ucl.ac.uk or Professor Mills at a.mills@ucl.ac.uk.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made known the programme of the summer course of Private International Law of 2024.

The course will be opened by Lord Lawrence Collins of Mapesbury (Former Justice at the United Kingdom Supreme Court) with a lecture on Use and Abuse of Comity in International Litigation.

The general course, titled The Metamorphoses of Private International Law, will be given by Charalambos Pamboukis (National and Kapodistrian University of Athens).

The special courses will be as follows: Jack Coe (Pepperdine Law School), Non-ICSID Convention Investor-State Awards in Domestic Courts; Andrew Dickinson (University of Oxford), Natural Justice in Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments; Carlos Esplugues (University of Valencia), New Dimensions in the Application of Foreign Law by Courts (and Arbitrators) and non-Judicial Authorities; Eva Lein (University of Lausanne), Breathing Space in International Contractual Disputes; Natalie Y. Morris-Sharma (Director at the Attorney-General’s Chambers Singapore), The Singapore Convention and the International Law of Mediation; Alessandra Zanobetti (University of Bologna), The Effects of Economic Sanctions and Counter-Measures on Private Legal Relationships.

The directors of studies will be Kubo Macák (University of Exeter) and Jacco Bomhoff (London School of Economics and Political Science) for the English-speaking section, Alain-Guy Tachou Sipowo (Université de Montréal) and Fabien Marchadier (University of Poitiers) for the French-speaking session.

All applicants are required to register online. A limited amount of scholarships is available. Registration period for full fee, scholarship, doctoral scholarship and Directed Studies applicants is between 1 November 2023 and 31 January 2024.

More information on the Academy’s programmes, including the upcoming Winter Course, may be found here.

This post was written by Mathilde Codazzi, who is a doctoral student at the University Paris II Panthéon-Assas.

In a judgment of 11 May 2023, the French Supreme Court For private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) ruled that the requirement in the French civil code that the legal representatives of a child give their consent to his/her adoption, and which applies irrespective of the law governing otherwise adoption, is no ground for denying exequatur to a foreign adoption judgment.

Background

Two decisions rendered by the Nottingham Family Court on 17 March 2009 and two other decisions rendered by the London Family Court on 22 November  2012 granted the adoption of four children to an English national and a French and English national who entered into a civil partnership in 2003 and married in 2017. By a judgment of 17 December 2020, the French first instance court (Tribunal judiciaire de Nantes) granted exequatur to the four English decisions.

Court of Appeal

By a judgment of 25 October 2021, the Rennes Court of Appeal overturned the first instance decision on the ground that the legal representatives of the children, namely their biological parents, had not given their consent to the adoption.

Article 370-3 of the French Civil Code reads

The requirements for an adoption are governed by the national law of the adoptive parent or, in case of adoption by two spouses, by the law which governs the effects of their union. An adoption however may not be declared when it is prohibited by the national laws of both spouses.
Adoption of a foreign minor may not be declared when his personal law prohibits such an institution, unless the minor was born and resides usually in France.
Whatever the applicable law may be, adoption requires the consent of the legal representative of the child. The consent must be free, obtained without any compensation, subsequent to the birth of the child and informed as to the consequences of adoption, especially when it is given for the purpose of a plenary adoption, as to the full and irrevocable character of the breaking off of the pre-existing kinship bond.

According to the Court of Appeal, the requirement contained in Article 370-3 of the French Civil Code that they give their free and informed consent, notably regarding the irrevocability of adoption since the pre-existing bond of filiation is dissolved by a full adoption (“adoption plénière”), is a substantive provision of private international law which must be applied whatever the law applicable to the adoption may be and an essential principle of the French law of adoption. Hence the court concluded that the English decisions were not in conformity with French international public policy and should not be enforced, as their enforcement would deprive the French international public policy of its substance.

Supreme Court

The issue was thus to determine whether Article 370-3 of the French Civil Code, which requires that the legal representative of the child give their free and informed consent to the adoption of the child, can be opposed to the enforcement of a foreign adoption judgment if such consent was not obtained.

By a judgment of 11 May 2023, the French Supreme Court overruled the decision of the Court of Appeal on the ground that Article 370-3 of the French Civil Code may not be invoked against a foreign adoption judgment to prevent its exequatur.

In other words, the fact that the children’s legal representatives did not give their consent to the adoption ordered by a foreign judgment cannot be invoked against the enforcement of this judgment. This judgment confirms the already established solution according to which the violation of the requirement that the free and informed consent of the child’s legal representative is necessary for the adoption to be ordered pursuant to Article 370-3 of the French Civil Code cannot amount to a ground of refusal of enforcement of the foreign adoption judgment. The French Supreme Court had indeed ruled so in a judgment of 7 December 2016 about an Ivorian judgment. Article 370-3 only applies in French adoption proceedings.

On 16 November 2023 the Lyon 3 University will host a colloquium on the French Draft Code of Private international Law, organised by Ludovic Pailler.

The presentation of the colloquium reads as follows:

Following a mission statement, the working group charged with considering the codification of private international law, chaired by Mr. Ancel, submitted its report to the Minister of Justice on 31 March 2022. This was followed by a public consultation and the announcement, by the Minister of Justice, that the project would come to fruition. This codification has already been the subject of two scientific events at our establishment (i.e. Lyon 3 University). One was devoted to the code’s construction model, the other to its content (see here). The third event, to be held on 16 November 2023 in Lyon, concerns a comparative law analysis of the draft code. 

The colloquium is divided into two parts. The first examines codification from the point of view of European Union member states. Both the value of this exercise and the practical ways in which it is carried out will be explored. Does French codification differ from its foreign equivalents? Is it expected? Doesn’t it run counter to European Union law? The second part of the presentation will be devoted to the point of views from outside the EU, with a view to testing the stated ambition of enhancing the attractiveness of French PIL, and analysing it in the light of experiences or initiatives undertaken in contexts where the subject is in decline (United States) or less integrated (Brazil).

The list of speakers and chairpersons includes : Olivier Gout, Cyril Nourissat, Ludovic Pailler, Frédérique Ferrand, Patrick Wautelet, Eva-Maria Kieninger, Pietro Franzina, Daniel Petrache, Hugues Fulchiron, Gian Paolo Romano, Yoko Nishitani, Chris Whytock, Gustavo Ferraz De Campos Monaco and Sabine Corneloup.

The event will be held in French and in English.

For registration see here. The full programme is available here.

That London is a global capital for dispute resolution is well known. But even by London standards, Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v His Majesty Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbón Y Borbón is a spectacular litigation. Like in all complex international litigation, private international law has a role to play in this case. This is the aspect of the case that the High Court (Rice J) addressed in its judgment of 6 October 2023.

This case is complex, as is the High Court judgment, which spans 307 paragraphs or 92 pages. This post will present the key facts of the case, before addressing the four issues of relevance for private international law that the court addressed, namely submission to the court’s jurisdiction, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, and the territorial scope of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Facts

The defendant was King of Spain between 1975 and 2014, when he abdicated the throne. The claimant is an international businesswoman. Both parties have a cosmopolitan lifestyle and maintain homes around the world. The parties agreed that the defendant was domiciled in Spain for the purposes of the proceedings, even though he had been living in Abu Dhabi since August 2020. The claimant is a Danish national with a residence in Monaco and a home in England.

The parties were in an intimate relationship between 2004 and 2009. Their relationship came to public attention in April 2012 in the aftermath of an elephant-hunting trip to Botswana. In June 2012, the defendant paid €65m to the claimant, the purpose of which is a matter of dispute and controversy. Shortly thereafter the defendant allegedly started to harass the claimant. Harassment allegedly continued after the defendant’s abdication.

The facts pleaded by the claimant are complex, but are conveniently summarised at [259]:

the Defendant (a) intimidated and pressured the Claimant over the use of the June 2012 payment, (b) threatened and intimidated her more generally, (c) made allegations of stealing, untrustworthiness and disloyalty with a view to disrupting her relations with friends and family, (d) made similar defamatory statements to her clients and business associates, (e) supplied false information to the media, with a view to publication, relating to her financial probity and alleging she was a threat to the Spanish national interest and/or was trying to blackmail the royal family, and (f) placed her and her advisers under surveillance, trespassed onto and damaged her Shropshire property and intercepted or monitored the mobile and internet accounts of herself and her advisors.

These acts of harassment were alleged to have occurred in different countries, including Austria, the Bahamas, England, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Tahiti, United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

It is on the basis of these facts that the claimant brought a claim in England under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 on 16 October 2020, two and a half months before the expiry of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020. This, coupled with the fact that the defendant was domiciled in Spain, meant that Brussels I bis applied.

The defendant’s first line of defence was sovereign immunity. On 6 December 2022, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant enjoyed immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 with respect to the allegations about his pre-abdication, but not post-abdication conduct. This paved the way for the issues that the High Court addressed in its judgment of 6 October 2023.

Submission

Submission is a recognised basis of jurisdiction under Article 26 of Brussels I bis. As a matter of High Court procedure, jurisdictional challenge and submission to jurisdiction are dealt with generally by Civil Procedure Rule 11. CPR 11(4)(a) provides that an application under this rule must be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service. Otherwise, the defendant is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim pursuant to CPR 11(5)(b).

The defendant filed an acknowledgment of service on 4 June 2021 and ticked the box ‘I intend to contest jurisdiction’. The claimant argued that the defendant should have disputed the court’s jurisdiction under Brussels I bis within 14 days. Instead, the defendant made a general challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction in his application notice of 18 June 2021 ‘on grounds that England is not the appropriate forum’ and sought ‘to set aside the service on the Defendant out of the jurisdiction, which was improperly effected’. On 21 February 2023, the defendant abandoned his objection to the service of the claim. A specific challenge to the court’s jurisdiction under Brussels I bis was not made until 22 March 2023. This specific challenge was made pursuant to case management directions that followed the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the immunity issue.

The court held that the defendant did not submit on the basis that his jurisdictional challenge was not abusive, that his general challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction of 18 June 2021 was sufficient at that stage, and that extension of time and relief from sanctions should be granted to cure any deemed submission that might have arisen by virtue of CPR 11(5)(b) from the lapse of a month between the abandonment of the service challenge and its replacement by the Brussels I bis challenge.

Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis

The heart of the judgment concerns the interpretation and application of Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis to a harassment claim and is found at [51]-[134]. This part of the judgment deals with four key points: the relationship between an autonomous interpretation of Article 7(2) and the domestic law under which the claim is pleaded; the elements of the tort of harassment under English law; whether the event giving rise to the damage occurred in England; and whether the damage occurred in England.

Relationship between Autonomous Interpretation and Domestic Law

It is undisputed that the concept of the ‘place of the harmful event’ in Article 7(2) requires an autonomous interpretation. But the question arose whether the domestic law under which the claim was pleaded had a role to play in this respect. The court provided a positive answer to this question. It quoted with approval [32]-[33] of the Supreme Court judgment in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov:

However, the requirement of an autonomous interpretation does not mean that the component elements of the cause of action in domestic law are irrelevant. On the contrary, they have a vital role in defining the legally relevant conduct and thus identifying the acts which fall to be located… In particular, whether an event is harmful is determined by national law.

This led the court to conclude that, for the purposes of determining whether the event giving rise to the damage occurred in England and whether the damage occurred in England, ‘the relevant “event” and “damage” are determined by English tort law, [which] requires consideration of whether the relevant components of an actionable tort, occurring in England, have been made out’ to the standard of a good arguable case ([63]-[64]).

Elements of the Tort of Harassment

This brought the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which introduced the tort of harassment into English law, to the spotlight. According to the court, the essence of the tort of harassment is that

it as ‘a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress’. The conduct ‘must cross the boundary between that which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the border from the regrettable to the objectionable, the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability’. ([69], referring to [40] of the High Court judgment in Hayden v Dickinson)

Importantly:

a course of conduct is something more than a series of events attributed to the same person. A ‘course of conduct’ is more than the additive sum of its parts. A nexus between the activities complained of is required; a court must assess whether the acts complained of are separate or linked together to form a specific and coherent whole. ([72])

Armed with this insight, the court proceeded to determine whether the event giving rise to the damage occurred in England and whether the damage occurred in England.

Event Giving Rise to the Damage

The parties clearly had a deep and multifaceted relationship that went spectacularly sour. It was also clear that the parties’ relationship, including its most unpleasant aspects and their consequences, spanned multiple jurisdictions. Two issues of relevance concerning the interpretation of the ‘event giving rise to the damage’ limb of Article 7(2), however, were not clear.

The first issue concerns the fact that acts of harassment can be done by a defendant directly or by another person on the defendant’s behalf. The question arose whether the acts of another person acting on the defendant’s behalf in England could amount to an act of the defendant in England for the purposes of Article 7(2). To answer this question, the court relied on the Melzer judgment of the Court of Justice:

I do not, and do not need to, take from this any clear principle that the acts of an agent cannot constitute the acts of a principal for the purposes of the ‘cause’ limb of the jurisdictional test where the agent acts in one jurisdiction on the authority of a principal in another. But I was shown no clear authority for the contrary principle either. And I do take from Melzer at least the thoughts that (a) the BRR concerns itself in principle with the issue of a causal act by one person being attributed to another under national law for the purposes of determining jurisdiction, because that tends against the fundamental principles of certainty, predictability and the proximity of a defendant’s conduct to the courts of another country and (b) great care needs to be taken with appeals to intuition as to the ‘right’ outcome in such matters, when the starting point is the fundamental principle of a defendant’s entitlement to be sued in his place of domicile, subject only to limited exceptions of a predictable nature made in the interests of the effective administration of justice. ([104])

The second issue is whether Article 7(2) required an English course of conduct to confer jurisdiction on the English courts, or whether an international course of conduct with acts of harassment in England sufficed. The court held that the former approach was right:

The jurisdictional test cannot be satisfied by doing no more than identifying a collection of English acts featuring in a pleaded international course of conduct and inviting an inference that they themselves add up to an actionable course of conduct in their own right… The right approach works the other way around. It has to start with the pleaded identification of an English course of conduct and then establish that, through pleaded constituent acts of the Defendant in England. Whether any ‘English subset’ of a pleaded international course of conduct amounts to an actionable tort in its own right must itself be pleaded and evidenced. It cannot be assumed as matter of logic to have that quality: harassment is a distinctively cumulative tort, and pleading a whole course of conduct as harassment does not imply pleading that any subset of it must itself constitute harassment (even though it may). ([106])

The court ultimately held that the claimant failed to identify and evidence a tortious course of conduct by the defendant with the necessary coherence, connectivity, persistence, and gravity constituting harassment that occurred in England.

Damage

The question of whether the relevant damage occurred in England raised related issues. Does Article 7(2) require that the claimant became aware of harassing events and experienced alarm, fear, and distress in England, that the proximate and direct damage occurred in England, or perhaps that something else occurred in England?

The court held that:

The impact of any individual constituent episode of that course of conduct is simply not the legally relevant ‘damage’ as defined by English tort law. Any individual episode need have no particular effect at all – it is the cumulative, oppressive effect of the total course of conduct which is of the essence of the tort. ([109])

In other words, the legally relevant damage is ‘just “being harassed”’ ([111]).

The claimant failed to identify and plead any specific experience of harassment in England. Instead, she pleaded an indivisible, ambulatory, and international experience of being harassed, which was not recognisable as distinctively English. Consequently, no relevant damage occurred in England. The court suggested that had the claimant had an English domicile, habitual residence, or physical presence in England throughout, she might have satisfied the requirements of the ‘damage’ limb of Article 7(2) ([118]).

Immunity

As mentioned, the Court of Appeal held on 6 December 2022 that the defendant enjoyed immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 with respect to the allegations about his pre-abdication, but not post-abdication conduct. Before the High Court, the claimant had another go at this by seeking permission to amend her pleadings to include pre-abdication matters on two bases: that these matters concerned the defendant’s motives for his post-abdication course of conduct; and these matters were part of the relevant background. The court refused permission because these matters were covered by immunity.

Extraterritoriality

Finally, the court addressed the issue of territorial scope of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As is well-known, common law courts apply the presumption against the extraterritorial application of domestic statutes. Since the case contained international elements, the question arose whether it fell outside the territorial scope of the Act.

The court indicated briefly that the Act had territorial limits and that the case fell outside those limits:

It is one thing to say that regard may arguably be had to an extraterritorial ‘act of a defendant’ in an otherwise securely pleaded and evidenced ‘course of conduct’ within the jurisdiction. It may also be right that ultimately…some sort of test of preponderance or ‘significant proportion’ might conceivably evolve to meet the facts of a particular case. But there is no authority at present which comes close to giving any basis for concluding that fully ‘international harassment’ is comprehended within the geographical scope of the Act and I was given no contextual basis for inferring a Parliamentary intention to achieve that as a matter of public policy. ([291])

Comment

This is a complex and rich case and it is impossible to examine it fully within the confines of a blog post that is already too long. I want, nevertheless, to mention three points by way of commentary.

The first point concerns Brexit and the civil law/common law divide in international civil litigation. Civil law jurisdiction rules, epitomised by Brussels I bis, allocate jurisdiction in a rigid way. Jurisdictional bases are limited in number and relatively narrow. Common law jurisdiction rules are flexible, and jurisdictional bases are more numerous and relatively broad. These two approaches to jurisdiction, and how they play out in tort disputes, were recently discussed by the UK Supreme Court in Brownlie 2. Mrs zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn was in a unique position in that she could choose the jurisdictional system under which to bring her claim. By commencing her proceedings in October 2020, she effectively opted for Brussels I bis. Had she waited a few months and commenced her proceedings after the expiry of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, she could have sued the defendant under the common law rules. It is possible that the claim would have passed the tortious jurisdictional gateway, but the forum conveniens doctrine would have presented a significant challenge. That is probably why the claimant chose to sue the defendant under Brussels I bis.

The second point concerns the court’s interpretation and application of Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis. In Shevill, the Court of Justice confirmed that the domestic law under which the claim is pleaded is of relevance for the application of Article 7(2):

The criteria for assessing whether the event in question is harmful and the evidence required of the existence and extent of the harm alleged by the victim of the defamation are not governed by the Convention but by the substantive law determined by the national conflict of laws rules of the court seised, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired. ([41])

The court seised on the opportunity created by Shevill to limit the jurisdiction of English courts over harassment claims. Through section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, Parliament sought to end London’s position as the global libel litigation capital. The High Court judgment in Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v His Majesty Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbón Y Borbón can be seen as a related development in the field of harassment.

Finally, the third point concerns the choice-of-law aspect of the case. Even though this was a jurisdictional dispute, the court nevertheless opined on the issue of extraterritoriality. It is interesting, however, that the court approached the issue of application of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 purely as an issue of statutory construction. There was no mention of the possibility that the choice-of-law rules of the Rome II Regulation (which is retained EU law) might have a role to play in this respect. I think that Rome II, at least if it is applied as directly applicable EU law, requires a different approach. The court should have started its analysis by applying the choice-of-law rules of Rome II. If English law applied, the court could have checked whether the case fell within the territorial scope of the Act. If English law did not apply, the court could have checked whether the Act should nevertheless apply on an overriding basis. A further question could then be asked, namely whether Rome II effects in any way the process of statutory construction.

The parties are in a bitter dispute. The claimant is likely to appeal the High Court judgment. The next chapter in this litigation is keenly awaited.