EAPIL blog

The European Court of Human Rights delivered on 10 October 2023 a judgment on a matter of paternity involving an international element.

The Facts

I.V., the applicant before the European Court of Human Rights, is a Latvian national living in Riga. In spring 2006 he had a son, born in Latvia, from a relationship. The mother no longer permitted contact between I.V. and his son from January 2007 onwards. Shortly afterwards, I.V. found out that another man had acknowledged paternity and been registered as the boy’s father. I.V. then challenged paternity in the Latvian courts.

While those proceedings in the Latvian courts were ongoing, the mother and child moved to Estonia and the child was adopted in April 2018 by the mother’s new husband. I.V. only learnt of the adoption afterwards and lodged an application in the Estonian courts to have the decision annulled.

The Estonian Supreme Court concluded in 2021 that I.V. did not have standing as the (legally recognised) “father” under Estonian law since his paternity had not yet been confirmed in Latvia. It also explained that, even if I.V.’s paternity were later recognised, that would not retroactively invalidate the consent to adoption of the legal father – that is to say the person registered as the child’s father at the time of the adoption.

Ultimately the Latvian courts recognised Mr I.V.’s paternity and registered him as the father, from the boy’s date of birth to the date of his adoption.

Complaint and Court’s Ruling

Relying in particular on Article 8 (right to respect for private and family life) of the European Convention on Human Rights, I.V. complained that his rights had been ignored in the proceedings allowing his son’s adoption and concerning the request to annul the adoption. He argued in particular that his son’s adoption should never have proceeded without his consent as the biological father.

In its judgment, the Court stressed that what was at stake in the present case was not the responsibility of the Latvian authorities, even though the paternity proceedings had lasted for an exceptionally long time in that country, but that of the Estonian State.

It pointed out that the case at hand had to be assessed as a whole, and that its task was to assess whether the Estonian authorities had struck a fair balance between the competing interests at stake, including both the interests of the applicant as well as those of his son.

However, the Court found that the Estonian authorities had shown a significant lack of diligence in relation to the proceedings concerning the adoption, even though they had to or ought to have been aware of the ongoing paternity proceedings in Latvia, given the Latvian authorities’ request, in January 2018, for judicial cooperation.

Subsequently, the Estonian Supreme Court had rejected the application to annul the adoption solely on formal grounds, without taking into account the particular circumstances of the case. The Supreme Court had found that the applicant did not have standing since his legal paternity had not yet been recognised by a final court judgment in Latvia.

The outcome of the proceedings in Estonia had actually led to the applicant’s legal paternity being recognised by the Latvian courts for a limited period only, that is to say until the date that the child had been adopted in Estonia.

The Court concluded overall that the Estonian authorities had failed to identify and examine the particular circumstances of the case and to assess the various rights and interests of the individuals involved, including those of the applicant, in either set of proceedings (allowing the adoption or concerning the request to annul the adoption). There had therefore been a violation of Article 8.

A symposium titled “Personal Status on the Move” (La circulation du statut personnel), organised by the Société de Législation Comparée (SLC), the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS), the Law Faculty of University of Côte d’Azur and the Associazione Civilisti Italiani, will take place on 19 January 2024 in Rome at the Corte Suprema di Cassazione.

The main topics covered will be civil status, persons’ identification, the union of persons, parenthood and nationality in a context of international mobility of persons and families.

Speakers (and chairs) include Claudio Scognamiglio (Chairman, Associazione Civilisti Italiani), Gustavo Cerqueira (Chairman, Section Méthodologie comparée du droit civil de la SLC), Nicolas Nord (Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Francesco Salerno (Università degli Studi di Ferrara), Marion Ho-Dac, Professeur (Université d’Artois), Camille Reitzer (Deputy Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status), Giovanni Di Rosa (Università di Catania), Fernand Munschy (Lawyer at the Strasbourg Bar & Université Haute-Alsace), Francesca Bartolini (Università degli Studi Link di Roma), Michele Sesta (Università di Bologna), Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Institut suisse de droit comparé), Alessandra Spangaro (Università di Bologna), Enrico Al Mureden (Università di Bologna), Ilaria Pretelli (Institut suisse de droit comparé), Renzo Calvigioni (Associazione Nazionale Ufficiali di Stato Civile e d’Anagrafe, ANUSCA), Gordon Choisel (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas), Mirzia Bianca (Università di Roma La Sapienza), Sylvain Bollée, (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne), Roberto Senigaglia (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia), Hugues Fulchiron (Conseiller extraordinaire à la Cour de cassation, France), Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas), Liliana Rossi Carleo (Università di Roma Tre).

Presentations will be held in French and Italian.

Those interested in attending can do so either in-person or on-line.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required by 12 January 2024, through segreteria.civilistiitaliani@gmail.com.

Additional information, including the full programme of the conference, can be found here.

A link to follow the conference remotely will be provided shortly.

From 15 February 2024 to 17 February 2024, an early career research workshop will be held at Freie Universität Berlin to discuss works in progress on dispute resolution mechanisms and competence-competence in multi-level systems. The workshop invites young researchers working on related topics from all fields of legal research and is open to different methodological approaches to analyse the research questions. The workshop aims to generate a constructive and friendly atmosphere to test working hypotheses and discuss findings.

Further information in the call for abstracts here.

Applications and questions can be addressed to Maren Vogel at maren.vogel@fu-berlin.de.

The University of Luxembourg will host a conference on Enforcing Arbitral Awards against Sovereigns: Recent Trends and Practice on 10 January 2024. The conference is organised in partnership with Bonn, Steichen and Partners.

The conference will be divided in four parts. The first will discuss the influence of EU law on enforcement. The second will address new issues related to enforcement such as assignment of awards and the influence of the right to property. The third will be concerned with issues relating to attachment of assets, including sovereign immunities and asset tracing. The fourth will discuss States’ international obligations to comply with arbitral awards.

Speakers will include Gary Born (WilmerHale), Nicholas Lawn (Lalive), Ana Stanic (E&U Law Limited), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg), Yael Ribco Borman (Gaillard Banifatemi Shelbaya Disputes), Javier Garcia Olmedo (University of Luxembourg), Fabio Trevisan (Bonn Steichen), Laura Rees-Evans (Fietta LLP), Thierry Hoscheit (Supreme Court, Luxemburg), Paschalis Paschalidis (Arendt & Medernach), Philippa Webb (Twenty Essex/ King’s College London), Michaël Schlesinge (Archipel), Luciana Ricart (Curtis, Mallet-Prevost, Colt & Mosle LLP), Crina Baltag, FCIArb (Stockholm University), Cameron Miles (3 Verulam Buildings), Manuel Casas (Twenty Essex), Loukas Mistelis (Queen Mary University of London/Clyde & Co), Matthew Happold (University of Luxembourg), Laure-Hélène Gaicio (Bonn Steichen).

The full programme can be found here. The event is free of charge, but registration is necessary (here).

The recently published Volume 433 of the Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law includes a course by Salim Moollan (Brick Court Chambers) on Parallel Proceedings in International Arbitration.

The issue of parallel proceedings in international arbitration has been a long-standing and classic problem within the field. Despite this, there have been major developments in practice since the last major academic analysis of the issue in 2006 by the International Law Association and by the Geneva Colloquium on Consolidation of Proceedings in Investment Arbitration, led by Professor Kaufmann-Kohler. With this in mind, now is an opportune moment to re-examine the issue through a fresh theoretical lens and renewed focus on finding practical solutions.

The blog of the European Association of Private International Law has hosted some 300 posts in the course of 2023: 79 of them reported on (and analysed) recent case law, while 64 informed about (and discussed) recent normative developments, at the domestic, European and international level (in 2022, the blog published 75 posts on case law and 38 posts on legislative developments).

Several posts were published to inform the members of the Association, and more generally the blog readers, about the activities of the Association (such as the position papers adopted by the working groups created to discuss the 1980 Child Abduction and the 1996 Child Protection Conventions, and the UNIDROIT draft principles on digital assets) and the Association’s events, including those planned to take place in 2024, including the EAPIL Winter School in Como and the EAPIL Conference in Wroclaw.

More than 60 posts were written by guests, which marks a slight increase compared with 2022. The editors are eager to receive more. So, please, potential guests, don’t hesitate to share with us your submissions! Just write an e-mail to blog@eapil.org.

The number of visitors has increased (+7%), and so has the number of subscribers: there are now more than 700 users who are regularly notified by e-mail of new posts. Our LinkedIn page, where the blog posts are re-published, has also attracted an increased number of “impressions”.

The most read posts, among those published in 2023, include Martina Mantovani’s Private International Law and Climate Change: the “Four Islanders of Pari” Case, Pietro Franzina’s Italian Authorities Claim Jurisdiction to Protect Indi Gregory After English High Court Ruled Life Support Should Be Withdrawn, and Matthias Lehmann’s UNIDROIT Principles on Digital Assets and Private Law Adopted.

Blog readers come from all over the world, with Europe, unsurprisingly, being the continent from which the majority of readers are established. Specifically, Italy, Germany, Spain, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, France and Belgium are at the top of the list. The United States is the non-European country where most of the blog readers are based.

Globally, the posts published in 2023 attracted 115 comments. The most commented posts include Erik Sinander’s Qatari State Immunity for Employment Court Procedure in Sweden, Gilles Cuniberti’s London Steamship: English Court Declines to Follow Ultra Vires CJEU Judgment, Matthias Lehmann’s Club La Costa (Part 1): Group-of-Companies Doctrine and Proof of Corporate Domicile under Brussels I bis, and Ugljesa Grusic’s Are English Courts Becoming the World’s Arbitral Policeman?

Many thanks, on behalf of the editorial team of the EAPIL blog, to all those who read our posts (and react to them with comments), those who draw our attention to recent developments and upcoming events, and those who contribute to our work as guests!

And all the best for the New Year!

Maxence Rivoire (PhD Candidate at the University of Cambridge and an incoming Lecturer in French Law at King’s College London) made available on SSRN his paper on ‘The Law Applicable to the Arbitrability of Registered Intellectual Property Rights’. In 2022 the paper won the Nappert Prize in International Arbitration awarded by McGill University.

The abstract reads as follows:

Although the power of an arbitral tribunal is subject to the will of the parties, some legal systems exclude certain types of intellectual property (IP) disputes from arbitration. This problem is commonly known as ‘arbitrability’. But what law, if any, should international arbitrators apply to arbitrability? This article addresses this question with a special focus on registered IP rights. Part I rejects the conflict rules that have traditionally been suggested to govern arbitrability, including the application of the law governing the arbitration agreement and that of the arbitral seat (lex loci arbitri). Part II argues that arbitrators should instead recognize the existence of a transnational principle whereby contractual, infringement, and ownership disputes are arbitrable. However, due to persisting uncertainty and differences among jurisdictions on the arbitrability of issues relating to the validity of registered IP rights, arbitrators should still give effect to domestic rules in this area. Acknowledging that non-arbitrability rules aim to safeguard the policy objectives of substantive IP laws and to protect the exclusive jurisdiction of national courts. Part III argues that the law applicable to the arbitrability of validity issues should be the law of the country for which IP protection is sought (lex loci protectionis), which corresponds to the law of the country where the IP right is registered. After examining the justification of this principle, Part III also discusses its practical implementation, notably where the dispute concerns IP rights registered in different countries, and where the lex loci protectionis clashes with the lex loci arbitri.

The author proposes a useful framework for international arbitrators who have to deal with conflict of laws relating to the arbitrability of registered IP rights such as patents and trademarks.

Biset Sena Güneş, senior research fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, has accepted the invitation of the editors of the blog to present her recent book, titled ‘Succession Upon Death: A Comparison of European and Turkish Private International Law’, written in English, and published by Mohr Siebeck.

This book offers a comparative analysis of the European Succession Regulation, the Turkish PILA of 2007, and the Turkish–German Succession Treaty of 1929, with a particular focus on conflict-of-laws and procedural issues which may arise in Turkish–EU Successions. The aim of the analysis is to discuss to what extent decisional harmony can be achieved in Turkish–EU successions. While the European Succession Regulation has been extensively covered in the literature, non-EU or “third-state” perspectives on the regulation have not received the same degree of attention. In adopting such a perspective on the EU Succession Regulation, the book allows for in-depth analysis of possible cases between the EU Member States and Turkey, which from the perspective of succession is an important “third” state due to the significant number of Turkish nationals residing in the EU.

The first chapter of the book elaborates on the practical relevance of Turkish–EU successions and provides the historical background as well as a general overview of the European Succession Regulation, the Turkish PILA of 2007, and the Turkish–German Succession Treaty of 1929. The second chapter addresses conflicts of laws in Turkish–EU successions both in terms of intestate and testamentary succession. Chapter 2 also undertakes a comparative analysis, in particular on the following issues: the principle of unity or scission; the connecting factors (nationality, habitual residence, and thesitus); the option to enter a professio iuris; matters within the scope of the law applicable to succession; the application of renvoi; and possible examples of overriding mandatory rules and ordre public in Turkish–EU successions. Finally, the third chapter analyses procedural issues in Turkish–EU succession conflicts. First, Chapter 3 compares the respective rules on jurisdiction and discusses possible conflicts of jurisdiction in the Turkish–EU context as well as the tools for avoiding such conflicts (especially choice of court agreements, lis pendens, and limitation of proceedings). It then deals with two questions as regards the European Certificate of Succession, namely whether one can be issued for Turkish nationals in Germany within the scope of the Turkish–German Succession Treaty, and whether a European Certificate of Succession issued in a Member State can be recognised in Turkey.

Key Findings

The comparative analysis demonstrates that the provisions of the German–Turkish Succession Treaty (Art. 20(14) and (15)), now-outdated reflections of the time at which the treaty was drafted, in practice create certain problems for persons who fall under them. But the differences between the rules of this treaty and the Turkish PILA are not as significant a factor for those affected as the differences between it and the EU Succession Regulation. Like the German–Turkish treaty regime (Art. 20(14) and (15)), the Turkish PILA adopts nationality as a connecting factor and has retained its traditional understanding regarding the law applicable to and jurisdiction over succession matters involving real property, at least when situated in its territory (Art. 20 and 43). The treaty regime thus still guarantees a level of coordination for succession cases which may arise between Turkey and Germany even though its rules are inconsistent with the Succession Regulation’s unitary approach towards succession and its main connecting factor of habitual residence (especially Art. 4 and Art. 21(1)).

In Turkish–EU successions not covered by the German–Turkish treaty, on the other hand, the decisional harmony which once could have been ensured through the adoption of the connecting factors of nationality and the situs now seems distorted, because the Succession Regulation (especially Art. 21(1)) revolves around the connecting factor of habitual residence. Some level of harmony in such cases can now be provided only through renvoi (under Art. 34(1) of the Regulation) and a professio iuris made by the deceased (under Art. 22 of the Regulation), although such a choice will not be valid in Turkey.

Harmony does not seem to exist in such cases at the procedural level, either. Potential jurisdictional conflicts between Turkey and Member State courts may arise especially where the deceased was habitually resident or domiciled in Turkey at the time of death and left assets both in Turkey and in a Member State. This is because Turkish courts in such a case will be competent to hear the case pursuant to Art. 43 of the Turkish PILA because the last domicile of the deceased was in Turkey. At the same time, the courts of the Member State in which the assets of the estate are located will also be competent to rule on the succession as a whole (even on assets located in Turkey) in accordance with Art. 10(1) of the Succession Regulation. Notwithstanding this, neither jurisdiction seems to have tools for coordinating jurisdiction (e.g., a mechanism for choice of court agreements or to stay proceedings based on a lis pendens) to eliminate such conflicts in the Turkish–EU context. The only provision which may be helpful in this regard is Art. 12 of the Succession Regulation, on the limitation of proceedings. But Art. 12 only applies on motion of the parties and even then on a discretionary basis.

In a post published on 8 June 2023, I introduced Zubaydah v Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office, a case heard by the UK Supreme Court on 14 and 15 June.

Abu Zubaydah, the claimant (respondent in the appeal), has brought a tort claim against the UK government (appellants in the appeal), alleging that MI5 and MI6 officers made requests, from their London offices, to their CIA counterparts to interrogate him in circumstances where they knew or ought to have known of his rendition, unlawful imprisonment and torture by the CIA. The central issue was the law applicable to the claim, specifically focusing on the disputed application of the escape clause from section 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. The facts of the case, the claim, the central issue and the parties’ arguments are presented in my post of 8 June.

On 20 December 2023, the court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in a four to one decision (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens; Lord Sales dissenting). The court held that English law governed the claim, and not the laws of Afghanistan, Lithuania, Morrocco, Poland and Thailand and the law in force in Guantanamo Bay (“Six Countries”).

Interestingly, the court found that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had erred in their approaches to section 12. The Court of Appeal, in particular, erred by focusing solely on the defendants’ conduct said to have occurred in England. It should have also taken into account the CIA’s conduct ([80], [81]). Hence, the Supreme Court conducted its own choice-of-law analysis.

The connections between the torts and the Six Countries were held to be weak for five reasons. First, Zubaydah was involuntarily present in the Six Countries ([75], [93]). Second, the defendants were entirely indifferent to Zubaydah’s location ([76], [94]). Third, Zubaydah was rendered to and detained in de facto black legal holes ([77], [95]). Fourth, he was held in six such facilities in six countries ([96]). Fifth, his gaolers and torturers were not agents of the Six Countries, but of a third country, ie the US ([97]).

Conversely, the connections between the torts and England were deemed strong for three reasons. First, the defendant is the UK government ([99]). Second, the relevant events occurred partly in England and for the perceived benefit of the UK ([78], [100]). Third, the defendants acted “in their official capacity in the purported exercise of powers conferred under the law of England and Wales… The defendants are all emanations of the UK Government and were at all material times subject to the criminal and public law of England and Wales.” ([101]; similarly [78])

Considering all these factors, the court held that it was substantially more appropriate for the applicable law to be English law.

In my post of 8 June, I noted that this case holds importance for private international law for two reasons.

Firstly, it highlights the role of private international law in holding the executive accountable and vindicating fundamental rights, particularly in cases involving alleged wrongs arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority. In my book on the topic, Torts in UK Foreign Relations, I argue that there are no compelling theoretical justifications for the application of foreign law in general to tort claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority. I further argue that the English courts should apply English law to tort claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority and reserve the application of foreign law only for certain issues, such as the lawfulness of the relevant conduct. The main reason for advocating the application of English tort law is that, together with English criminal and public law, it is fine-tuned for assuring the accountability of British public authorities. Foreign tort law is unlikely to be able to substitute for English tort law.

The Supreme Court essentially adopts this argument by placing decisive weight on the connections between the torts and England. It reinforces this point in relation to the misfeasance claim by noting, at ([62]), that “there is scope for suggesting, for example, that on the presumed facts of this case, it is a constitutional imperative that the applicable law in relation to the tort of misfeasance in public office in relation to the acts and omissions of the UK Services should be the law of England and Wales”.

Secondly, the parties and the court relied on reasonable/legitimate expectations as important factors in the choice-of-law process. Zubaydah’s involuntary presence in the Six Countries meant that he did not have a reasonable expectation that his situation or activities might be governed by the local laws ([75], [93]). Furthermore, the defendants’ indifference to Zubaydah’s location meant that the defendants never expected or intended their conduct to be judged by reference to the local laws ([94]). It is by partial reliance on this fundamental principle underlying the application of foreign law that the court held that foreign laws did not apply.

The Supreme Court judgment is important for two more reasons. It clarifies that an appellate court can interfere with an evaluative judgment under sections 11 and 12 of the 1995 Act if there is shown to be a clear error of law or the judge has reached a conclusion not reasonably open to them ([57]). Furthermore, it sheds light on the handling of accessory liability claims in choice of law. Such claims involve a secondary wrongdoer defendant and a primary wrongdoer third party. The court held that the “factors which connect a tort or delict” with a country, which the courts should consider when applying the escape clause from section 12, cover not only the allegedly wrongful conduct of the secondary wrongdoer (UK Services) but also that of the primary wrongdoer (the CIA) ([80], [81]). Although this judgment was made in the context of the 1995 Act, these aspects of its reasoning can easily be extrapolated to other choice of law contexts.

The recently published Volume 433 of the Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law includes the course by Kartsten Thorn (Bucerius Law School) on The Protection of Small and Medium-sized Enterprises in Private International Law.

Speaking about the protection of structurally weaker parties in private international law, this normally refers to non-business parties as consumers or employees. However, in many cases also entrepreneurs are protected. Well-known examples are the commercial agent under European law, the subcontractor in France and the franchisee in many US jurisdictions.

This paper systematizes these cases, looks for underlying policies and develops a proposal for future private international law rules with regard to small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). It understands private international law in the broad French sense encompassing jurisdiction rules and even international commercial arbitration.

Methodologically, the interplay between substantive law, conflict of laws rules and jurisdiction rules for the protection of weaker parties in the context of different legal systems is shown and evaluated with special consideration of their internationally mandatory rules. Legal gaps to European Private International law are identified in comparison to foreign jurisdictions. Following an economic analysis, a new approach to the protection of SMEs is presented which also encompasses international commercial arbitration as an alternative method of dispute resolution.

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. This issue features a symposium with several articles focussing on fundamental rights and private international law, one of them in English, the others in German. The following abstracts have been kindly provided to us by the editor of the journal.

Mareike Schmidt, Kulturalität der Rechtsanwendung und internationale Rechtsvereinheitlichung – Überlegungen am Beispiel des UN-Kaufrechts (Cultural Dimensions in the Application of Law and International Unification of Law – The Example of the CISG)

The uniform application of law, in general, and of international uniform law, in particular, is confronted with the challenges of cultural diversity. Drawing on a meaning-based understanding of culture and using the example of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, the article examines the extent to which cultural conceptions of normality shape the individual steps in the application of law and illustrates this influence with concrete examples. Overall, it becomes clear that the cultural nature of the application of law goes well beyond what is usually discussed. The analysis advances an understanding of the application of international uniform law as the processing of cultural difference, in the context of which – and within an entire network of actors – foreign conceptions of normality are often interpreted with the aim of integrating them into one’s own system of meaning. The resulting depiction of interconnections within this network, which concludes the text, can serve as a starting point for a more detailed analysis of the processes involved.

Maarten Herbosch, Contracting with Artificial Intelligence – A Comparative Analysis of the Intent to Contract

Computer systems based on artificial intelligence (AI) are an increasing presence in everyday legal practice. They may even be used to form contracts on behalf of their users. In such instances, it is not necessarily required that the system has been set up to take precise, pre-specified actions from an engineering perspective. As a result, the system may enter into contracts unforeseen by its user. This comes into friction with the requirements that contract formation depends on the contracting parties’ intent to be bound or that a contract constitutes a meeting of the minds. It is obscure how the intent to form a specific contract or a meeting of the minds can be present if one of the parties may not even know that a particular contract is being entered into. To tackle this challenge, this article thoroughly examines the intent requirement in various legal systems. It becomes clear that the intent requirement is often loosely applied and that its role is formulated too generally, unnecessarily obstructing a straightforward application to contract formation via AI systems. Supplying nuance to the role of intent in contract formation helps clarify that the intent requirement is not in fact an obstacle to contract formation via AI systems.

Ralf Michaels, Einleitung zum Symposium: Grundrechte und IPR im Lichte der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts zum Kinderehenbekämpfungsgesetz ( Symposium Introduction: Fundamental Rights and Private International Law after the Federal Constitutional Court Decision on the Act to Combat Child Marriages)

This issue presents the contributions to a symposium which examined the German Federal Constitutional Court’s ruling on the Act to Combat Child Marriages from the perspectives of constitutional law and the conflict of laws. This introduction summarizes the Court’s ruling and situates it in the scheme of German jurisprudence; thereafter, the symposium and the presented papers are described.

Henning Radtke, Zu den Maßstäben der verfassungsrechtlichen Beurteilung von Regelungen des deutschen Internationalen Privatrechts (On the Standards of Constitutional Review of Provisions of German Private International Law)

The German Federal Constitutional Court regularly reviews the constitutionality of domestic provisions of private international law and their application by the competent courts. In doing so, it takes into account the special features of this type of legislation that result, for example, from the cross-border dimension of the situations it is supposed to address and from the necessary respect for the validity of foreign legal systems. With regard to the protection of marriage and the family, this applies in particular when determining the scope of protection and the structural principles underlying art. 6 para. 1 and other provisions under the German Basic Law. The level of scrutiny when examining constitutionality is primarily determined on the basis of the principle of proportionality.

Susanne Lilian Gössl, Grundrechte und IPR – Von beidseitigem Desinteresse zu höflicher Aufmerksamkeit – und zu angeregtem Austausch? (Fundamental Rights and Private International Law: From Mutual Disinterest to Respectful Attention – and on to Animated Exchange?)

The relationship between German constitutional law and the field of conflict of laws has been discussed for decades, especially when decisions of the Constitutional Court (BVerfG) addressing private international law issues have been pending or published. The most recent occasion to reflect on this relationship is the decision of the BVerfG on the Act to Combat Child Marriages. Initially, German scholars had assumed that conflict of laws, as a value-neutral and merely technical body of law, was constitutionally irrelevant. Fundamental rights could – according to a first Constitutional Court decision – at most become relevant through the ordre public clause. Foreign law was subsequently upgraded by the widow’s pension decision, with the result that foreign rules can expand the scope of German fundamental rights. Ultimately, the BVerfG has affirmed that – like private law generally – private international law is bound to the German Constitution as part of the collective legal order and, furthermore, that it shapes the expression of constitutional guarantees in the German legal order. Nevertheless, many theoretically intriguing questions remain open, such as the character of foreign law in the jurisprudence of the Constitutional Court. These questions invite further inquiry and academic exchange.

Lars Viellechner, Die Anwendbarkeit der Grundrechte im Internationalen Privatrecht: Zur Methodik der Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts über die Kinderehe (The Applicability of Fundamental Rights in Private International Law: On the Methodology of the Federal Constitutional Court’s Decision Regarding Child Marriage)

In its decision on the Act to Combat Child Marriages, the Federal Constitutional Court of Germany does not explicitly address the applicability of fundamental rights in private international law. It only considers some cross-border effects of the statute in the context of the proportionality test. According to its own earlier case law, however, it should have taken a position on this question. It could also have taken the opportunity to further develop a constitutional notion of conflict of laws, which equally shines through its decisions on the relationship between the Basic Law and both international law as well as European Union law. With resort to such a method, not only could it have clarified a question of principal significance regarding the relationship between fundamental rights and private international law, it might also have reached a different result in the present case.

Dagmar Coester-Waltjen, Die »Kinderehen«-Entscheidung des Bundesverfassungsgerichts: Welche Schlussfolgerungen ergeben sich für das internationale Eheschließungsrecht? (The Early Marriage Decision of the Federal Constitutional Court: What Does It Mean for International Marriage Law?)

The decision of the Federal Constitutional Court on art. 13 para. 3 no. 1 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code raises many questions of private international law. Although the court ultimately held the provision unconstitutional, a welcome outcome, the decision also weakens the protection of legal statuses acquired under foreign law and allows the specifications and classifications of German internal law to apply as the standard even for marriages validly entered into under foreign law. The court roughly indicates a few possible ways to remedy the disproportionality of the provision, but it would seem difficult to implement these remedies in a way that both systematically conforms with the principles of private international law and does not create serious practical issues. As an alternative, the legislator should instead consider declaring all underage marriages, including the »earliest of the early«, to be voidable, because although the court’s ruling accepts their classification as non-marriages, it does not necessarily require such a harsh categorization. The article concludes by examining the potential of a fundamental reform of art. 13 of the Introductory Act to the Civil Code.

The table of contents in German is available here.

On 7 December 2023, The Council presidency and European Parliament representatives reached a provisional agreement on a reform of the Statute of the Court of Justice (last version available here).

Among other things, the reform will permit the transfer of jurisdiction over preliminary rulings to the General Court in specific areas, while the Court of Justice will retain jurisdiction over questions of principle, like those that involve interpretation of the Treaties or the Charter of Fundamental Rights.

The amendment, which is meant to reduce the workload of the Court of Justice and, therefore, to help her work more efficient, represents an essential step in the history of the institution as we know it.

The possibility of the handover is formally established by Article 256 TFEU, according to which:

3. The General Court shall have jurisdiction to hear and determine questions referred for a preliminary ruling under Article 267, in specific areas laid down by the Statute.

Where the General Court considers that the case requires a decision of principle likely to affect the unity or consistency of Union law, it may refer the case to the Court of Justice for a ruling.

Decisions given by the General Court on questions referred for a preliminary ruling may exceptionally be subject to review by the Court of Justice, under the conditions and within the limits laid down by the Statute, where there is a serious risk of the unity or consistency of Union law being affected.

It should be noted that the provision is not a novelty in EU law; it corresponds to former Article 225 TEC. In fact, the transfer to the General Court of partial jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings had already been considered in the past: at the end of last century, first, against the background of the Treaty of Amsterdam and the foreseen enlargement of the Union; and later, around 2015, in view of the increasing number of requests for preliminary rulings. However, in 2017, in a report submitted pursuant to Article 3(2) of Regulation (EU, Euratom) 2015/2422 of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Protocol No 3 on the Statute of the Court of Justice of the European Union, the Court of Justice had denied the need of a transfer at the time. On the other hand, it  simultaneously stressed that such standpoint “should not at all be understood as a definitive position on the question of the distribution of jurisdiction to give preliminary rulings between the Court of Justice and the General Court”. And, indeed, it has not been a definitive position.

For the readers of this blog the essential question is, of course, what the impact of the competences adjustment will be on preliminary rulings conerning PIL instruments.

The simple answer would be that, in principle, none is to be expected. The specific areas in which the General Court will be competent over preliminary rulings are: the common system of value added tax; excise duties; the Customs Code; the tariff classification of goods under the Combined Nomenclature; compensation and assistance to passengers in case of delay or cancellation of transport services or denied boarding; the scheme for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading. In other words, as of today requests on the instruments for judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters are not affected, i.e., they fall under the scope of exclusive competence of the Court of Justice.

But this, of course, can change any moment in the future. More importantly, already now it is legitimate to have doubts as to the operation of the assignments to, respectively, the Court of Justice and the General Court: one single request for a preliminary ruling may concern at the same time one of the above-mentioned areas and another one; besides, requests related to one of those matters may as well entail questions of principle or of a cross-cutting nature.

More concretely, with an example: should the request for a preliminary ruling in, let’s say, case C‑213/18, or in case C-20/21, had been referred to Luxembourg after the transfer has been accomplished, who would have taken care?

In the Council’s press release of 7 December 2023 (the same date as the agreement’s) not much is said to shed light on this and similar questions. It is explained, though, that, ‘On the procedural aspects, the reform provides for a “one-stop-shop” mechanism, under which national judges will continue to address requests for preliminary rulings to the Court of Justice, which will in turn forward to the General Court the questions under its jurisdiction’.

This possibly means that a screening will take place at the level of the Court of Justice, and that a substantiated decision will be made there on the allocation of requests not squarely corresponding to one of the categories listed above. No doubt, for the sake of transparency the criteria for such allocation will also be communicated to the public at some point, likely soon. It is also to be expected (and it is hoped) that resources of the Court will be invested in making sure that, from the very beginning, they are consistently applied.

The readers of the blog are aware of the proposal for a Directive on the protection of persons who engage in public participation from manifestly unfounded or abusive court proceedings, also known as strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs).

After the political agreement reached at Council level and the European Parliament’s negotiating position, the negotiators of the Parliament and of the Council reached on 30 November 2023 a provisional political agreement on the text to be adopted. The agreement is expected to be formally approved by the Council and the European Parliament at a later stage.

The text of the deal, made accessible here, features various innovations, including the following.

Minimum Requirements

The text resulting from the political agreement now makes clear that the Directive lays down minimum rules, thus enabling the Member States to adopt or maintain provisions that are more favourable to persons engaging in public participation, including national provisions that establish more effective procedural safeguards. The implementation of the Directive should not serve to justify any regression in relation to the level of protection that already exists in each Member State.

Public Participation

Public participation is more broadly defined.

It should mean any statement, activity or preparatory, supporting or assisting action directly linked thereto, by a natural or legal person expressed or carried out in the exercise of fundamental rights.

Future public interest is included, referring to the fact that a matter might not yet be of public interest, but could become so, once the public becomes aware of it, for example by means of a publication.

Such activities should directly concern a specific act of public participation or be based on a contractual link between the actual target of SLAPP and the person providing the preparatory, supporting or assisting activity. Bringing claims not against a journalist or a human rights defender but against the internet platform on which they publish their work or against the company that prints a text or a shop that sells the text can be an effective way of silencing public participation, as without such services opinions cannot be published and thus cannot influence public debate.

Matter of Public Interest

The notion of a matter of public interest is clarified in more detail.

It should include matters relevant to the enjoyment of fundamental rights.

Activities of a natural or legal person who is a public figure should also be considered as matters of public interest since the public may legitimately take an interest in them.

In addition, matters under consideration by a legislative, executive or judicial body or any other official proceedings can be examples of matters of public interest.

Finally, the Directive text provides under Recital 19b for many cases where a matter of public interest is at stake.

Abusive Court Proceedings

The description of when court proceedings can be considered abusive is reworked and better described.

They typically involve litigation tactics deployed by the claimant and used in bad faith including but not limited to the choice of jurisdiction, relying on one or more fully or partially unfounded claims, making excessive claims, the use of delaying strategies or discontinuing cases at a later stage of the proceedings, initiating multiple proceedings on similar matters, incurring disproportionate costs for the defendant in the proceedings. The past conduct of the claimant and, in particular, any history of legal intimidation should also be considered when determining whether the court proceedings are abusive in nature. Those litigation tactics, which are often combined with various forms of intimidation, harassment or threats before or during the proceedings, are used by the claimant for purposes other than gaining access to justice or genuinely exercising a right and aim to achieve a chilling effect on public participation in the matter at stake.

Claims made in abusive court proceedings can be either fully or partially unfounded. This means that a claim does not necessarily have to be completely unfounded for the proceedings to be considered abusive. For example, even a minor violation of personality rights that could give rise to a modest claim for compensation under the applicable law can still be abusive, if a manifestly excessive amount or remedy is claimed. On the other hand, if the claimant in court proceedings pursues claims that are founded, such proceedings should not be regarded as abusive for the purposes of the Directive.

Scope

Few express indications have been added.

The Directive shall apply to matters of a civil or commercial nature with cross-border implications entertained in civil proceedings, including interim and precautionary measures and counteractions, entertained in civil proceedings, whatever the nature of the court or tribunal.

Then, it shall not apply to criminal matters or arbitration and shall be without prejudice to criminal procedural law.

Matters with Cross-border Implications

The cross-border implications element has been revised.

According to the text, a matter is considered to have cross-border implications unless both parties are domiciled in the same Member State as the court seised and all other elements relevant to the situation are located only in that Member State. Domicile shall be determined in accordance with the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Common Rules on Procedural Safeguards

Article 5a, devoted to the accelerated treatment of applications for safeguards, has been added.

Member States shall ensure that applications for security and early dismissal of manifestly unfounded claims are treated in an accelerated manner in accordance with national law, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

Member States shall ensure that applications for remedies against abusive court proceedings may also be treated in an accelerated manner, where possible, in accordance with national law, taking into account the circumstances of the case, the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

Early Dismissal of Manifestly Unfounded Claims

In relation to the early dismissal, Member States shall ensure that courts and tribunals may dismiss, after appropriate examination, claims against public participation as manifestly unfounded at the earliest possible stage, in accordance with national law. In addition, Member States shall ensure that an application for early dismissal is treated in an accelerated manner in accordance with national law, taking into account the circumstances of the case and the right to an effective remedy and the right to a fair trial.

The burden of proof and substantiation of claims, under Article 12, have been specified. The burden of proving that the claim is well founded rests on the claimant who brought the action. Member States shall ensure that where a defendant has applied for early dismissal, it shall be for the claimant to substantiate the claim in order to enable the court to assess whether it is not manifestly unfounded.

Finally, Member States shall ensure that a decision granting early dismissal is subject to an appeal.

Remedies Against Abusive Court Proceedings

The award of costs, under Article 14, is clarified. Member States shall ensure that a claimant who has brought abusive court proceedings against public participation can be ordered to bear all types of costs of the proceedings, available under national law including the full costs of legal representation incurred by the defendant, unless such costs are excessive. Where national law does not guarantee the award in full of the costs of legal representation beyond statutory fee tables, Member States shall ensure that such costs are fully covered, unless they are excessive, by other means available under national law.

Article 15, specifically devoted to compensation of damages, has been deleted. It provided a natural or legal person who has suffered harm as a result of a SLAPP case to be capable of claim and to obtain full compensation for that harm. The text resulting from the political agreement loses this (express) provision.

Article 16, dedicated to penalties, has been amended including other equally effective appropriate measures. Member States shall ensure that courts or tribunals seised of SLAPPs cases may impose effective, proportionate and dissuasive penalties or other equally effective appropriate measures, including the payment of compensation for damages or the publication of the court decision, where provided for in national law, on the party who brought those proceedings.

Protection against Third-country Judgments

This chapter has been affected by significant changes relevant from a private international law perspective.

In relation to grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment, the reference to public policy, which was used in the original text version proposed by the Commission, has been deleted. According to the current text version, Member States shall ensure that the recognition and enforcement of a third-country judgment in court proceedings against public participation by a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State is refused if those proceedings are considered manifestly unfounded or abusive according to the law of the Member State in which recognition or enforcement is sought.

Article 18, on jurisdiction for actions related to third-country proceedings, provides as follows. Member States shall ensure that, where abusive court proceedings against public participation have been brought by a claimant domiciled outside the Union in a court or tribunal of a third country against a natural or legal person domiciled in a Member State, that person may seek, in the courts or tribunals of the place where he is domiciled, compensation for the damages and the costs incurred in connection with the proceedings before the court or tribunal of the third country.

A paragraph 2 has been added, providing that Member States may limit the exercise of the jurisdiction while proceedings are still pending in the third country.

Relations with other Private International Law Instruments

In final provisions, under Article 19, the Directive shall not affect the application of bilateral and multilateral conventions and agreements between a third State and the Union or a Member State concluded before the date of entry into force of the Directive. Recital 33a refers, as example, to the 2007 Lugano Convention, in line with Article 351 of the TFEU.

Under Recital 33b it is specified that any future review of the rules under the Brussels I bis and the Rome II Regulations should assess also the SLAPP-specific aspects of the rules on jurisdiction and applicable law.

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held in a judgment of 26 October 2023 (Application no. 32662/20) that a Hungarian child abduction procedure under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (1980 Hague Convention) was not compatible with the family rights set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court reiterated that national return procedures should be managed in such a way as to ensure that a swift return of the child is possible, with both parents being granted contact with the child as the procedure unfolds.

Background

A couple consisting of a Spanish father and a Hungarian mother had two children. One was born in Hungary in 2013 and one was born in Spain in 2015. After a family holiday to a third country in January 2017, the father returned alone to Spain, whereas the mother and children went to Hungary. While in Hungary, the mother told the father that she had decided to settle permanently in Hungary with the children.

In February 2017, the father filed an application for the return of the children to Spain based on the 1980 Hague Convention. Courts in three instances, including the Hungarian Supreme Court, held that the father was right and that the children should return to Spain. However, in February 2018, the Hungarian Constitutional Court suspended the enforcement of the return of the children. In a decision given in November 2018, the enforcement was cancelled by the Constitutional Court, which held that the mother’s right to a fair trial had been violated, as the children’s interests had not been considered.

After the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the return order was again a matter for the Hungarian courts. This time, a psychological evaluation of the children was presented as evidence. Again, the Hungarian courts in three instances held that the children should return to Spain. The Constitutional Court was still not satisfied and quashed this return order as well. A third round of procedures for the same return was initiated in the district court in 2020. Shortly before that, Hungarian courts recognized a Spanish judgment giving the father custody of the children under Regulation (EU) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis).

During the almost four-year procedure, the father had applied to see his children on numerous occasions, but Hungarian authorities permitted only twelve encounters. Ultimately, during a parental visit in 2020, the father took the children back to Spain.

At the ECtHR in Strasbourg, the father complained about the Hungarian procedure. He claimed that the return procedure had violated his family rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, as the application of the Hague Convention was wrongful, both in that he had not been granted parental contact during the procedure and in the Hungarian non-enforcement of the Spanish decisions.

Judgment

The ECtHR held initially in its judgment that a State respondent to an international child abduction has family rights obligations towards the parent seeking the return of the child. That State must, inter alia, examine applications under the 1980 Hague Convention “with a view to ensuring […] prompt reunion.”

In this regard, the ECtHR held that the Hungarian procedure had been too slow, lasting nearly four years. Specifically, the Court noted that if Hungarian authorities found it necessary to consider psychological expertise in return matters, they should have organised the procedure in such a way that the expertise in question could be obtained without undue delays.

Lastly, the Court also held that the Hungarian authorities had not taken any measures to enforce the Spanish court decisions on custody rights.

Therefore, the Court held that Hungary had violated the father’s family rights under Article 8.

Comment

The judgment of the ECtHR comes as no surprise in that it emphasizes that the sturdy principle of prompt return under the 1980 Hague Convention is protected also under Article 8 of the ECHR.

One must remember that the passage of time in child abduction cases will always favor the abducting parent. Eventually, it will not be in the best interest of the child to be returned to a parent with whom it no longer has any relationship. After all, the 1980 Hague Convention is in place to avoid that an abductor is rewarded with custody. From a private international law perspective, custody rights must be dealt with separately, in “normal” custody procedures.

Fabian Kratzlmeier (Chicago) has accepted the invitation of the editors of the blog to present his recent book, titled ‘Die Grenzüberschreitende Unternehmensrestrukturierung im Europäischen Rechtsrahmen’ (Cross-border corporate restructuring and European private international law), published by Mohr Siebeck.

Reorganizing viable firms (instead of liquidating them) has been the state of the art in U.S. bankruptcy law for decades now, and it has become increasingly popular throughout Europe in recent years. This trend is reflected in legislative activities, such as the repeated reform efforts to the German bankruptcy code aiming at rescuing profitable, but over-indebted firms within the traditional insolvency procedure. It is also evidenced by practical patterns, most notably (not only) German companies using foreign restructuring instruments, in particular the English Scheme of Arrangement, to amend their financing structure while continuing trading in the 2010s. Even then – more than a decade ago – the wide-reaching impacts of such cross-border restructurings were heavily discussed in bankruptcy and private international law scholarship by some scholars, showing the (not only political) brisance of private international law in the area of restructuring law.

Whenever the earnings of a debtor company no longer cover its financial obligations, the creditors (and the shareholders) share a common interest in maximizing the pool of distributable assets. Where the continuation of the business under the old legal entity promises a higher present value compared to the liquidation of the debtor – be it piecemeal or through a business sale – economic logic demands a legal framework to resolve the underlying collective action problem. It is therefore the task of a modern insolvency and restructuring law to provide the parties involved with an appropriate set of rules that facilitates negotiations in order to adjust the debtor’s liabilities to the prospective earnings of the company (e.g. through debt reductions, deferrals or debt-equity-swaps).

In terms of the (continental) European landscape, the Restructuring Directive 2019 (hereinafter “Directive”) has set new standards in restructuring law, requiring Member States to reform and, in many cases, modernize their insolvency and restructuring laws. It mandates all Member States to maintain preventive restructuring instruments, enabling financially distressed companies to temporarily protect their business assets against collection or enforcement actions, and providing a majority voting scheme in order to cram down (groups of) dissenting creditors. In accordance with its minimum harmonization concept, however, the Directive leaves the Member States with a large number of choices and deviation options. Thus, the national restructuring frameworks differ widely from one another in some key aspects; e.g. regarding the entry threshold (the extent of financial distress required to access), the duration and scope of the moratorium, and the conditions and limits to the cram down mechanism (in particular as to group formation and priorities), to name but a few. The legal and economic positions of the various groups of stakeholders – and, consequently, their negotiating power in the immanent struggle over the distribution of going concern value – depend to a large extent on the jurisdiction in which the reorganization takes place and what options for action the local restructuring law offers to the respective stakeholders. It is obvious, that decision makers, when looking for suitable restructuring options, will not limit themselves to their home state’s reorganization tools, but explore foreign instruments as well, as past experiences with the English Scheme of Arrangement have proven before. As long as there is legal certainty, i.e. the reorganization is likely to be recognized by the relevant (i.e. asset-intensive) jurisdictions, decision makers have in incentive to choose the restructuring location that best serves their interests, ultimately resulting in a regulatory competition between national restructuring regimes throughout the EU. Private international law, in this context, regulates this competition by limiting (or unlocking) such choice of foreign insolvency and restructuring venues (and their respective laws). Against this background, the present study undertakes to comprehensively review and, building on its findings, further develop the legal framework for cross-border corporate restructurings within Europe, presenting a solution that is both coherent with existing European legislation, and consistent with the underlying principles of European insolvency law.

There is, however, another reason why further research in this area is desperately needed: Thanks to the ever-growing integration of the internal market and, thus, the establishment of international trade relations and supply chains, purely nationally operating companies (other than micro-enterprises) have long become the exception. It does not take much to make a national restructuring case an international one, i.e. the cross-border element does not need to amount to a foreign branch or similarly consolidated business structures. A foreign creditor or a third-party debtor based abroad suffices to turn a national company into an international restructuring case. Hence, the minimum harmonization of the substantive law by the Directive alone is not going to achieve the underlying goal set by the Union legislator, that is to provide all European companies with access to effective and efficient restructuring instruments. Rather, in cases with cross-border exposure, the question inevitably arises as to whether the financial crisis can be overcome in a single procedure – hauling all (including foreign) affected parties into one procedure and having it recognized across all (relevant) jurisdictions – or whether several procedures are necessary in order to implement a sustainable restructuring of the company and thus safe the going concern value.

Unfortunately, this need for international coordination and harmonization of cross-border corporate reorganizations, arising from the very conceptual nature of collective proceedings, has been hardly taken into account by the legislator when drafting the Directive. There are only three recitals (12 to 14) dealing with these issues in the first place, and even they contain only rudimentary (and hardly expedient) considerations regarding the relationship between the Directive and existing regulations in European private international law. In particular, they reference the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR) as well as the center of main interest (COMI), which is of paramount importance to the current international insolvency regime, to which it serves as the central connecting factor determining both jurisdiction and applicable law. In terms of (reliable) conclusions regarding the classification of the new restructuring frameworks and their integration into the existing private international law framework, however, the recitals only provide limited guidance. The recitals make it clear, though, that at least some of the proceedings created in transposing the Directive (i.e. those that are to be publicly announced) shall be subject to the EIR and, therefore, be included in the latter’s Annex A.

The study takes this as its starting point to demonstrate that the EIR provides a tailor-made set of rules for public proceedings, providing clear and (for the most part) fitting rules on international jurisdiction and applicable law while also guaranteeing EU-wide recognition. At the same time, however, there are some drawbacks in the EIR’s application to restructuring proceedings mainly resulting in setbacks to the collectivization mechanism aimed at on a substantive level. These issues, including rights in rem and secondary proceedings, are discussed in depth, and appropriate solutions are presented both de lege lata and de lege ferenda.

Turing to confidential restructuring frameworks, to which the recitals are silent, the scholarly debate is still evolving. Due to their private nature, they are increasingly popular in practice. At least in part motivated by the onsetting regulatory competition in the field, therefore, many Member States (including Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria) opted for a dual transposition enacting both a public and a private alternative. Since confidential procedures will not be included in Annex A and, thus, will prima facie remain outside the scope of the EIR, there are considerable hurdles to overcome in order to embed such procedures into the existing European private international law framework. First and foremost, the so-called bankruptcy clause enshrined in Art. 1 (2)(b) Brussels I bis Regulation challenges the integration into the existing secondary law altogether. A closer look at the issue reveals, however, that this provision excludes only those procedures, which qualify as “insolvency proceedings” under Art. 1 EIR, regardless of whether such proceeding is included in Annex A. Turning to international jurisdiction, the study is building on the controversy and the different propositions surrounding international jurisdiction to restructure foreign companies under an English scheme of arrangement. In that context, the arguments previously put forward in support of Art. 8 (1) (jurisdiction wherever at least one affected party has her domicile) and 24 (2) Brussels I-bis Regulation (jurisdiction at the place of the registered seat) are discussed and assessed as to their validity with regard to the new restructuring instruments. After all, the Directive differs in key respects from its English blueprint, and, thanks to its EU-law origin, requires special considerations concerning the coherence of (secondary) European law. Ultimately, the study finds that neither of the international jurisdiction rules provided for in the Brussels-I-bis Regulation are well-suited (or even practicable) for collective procedures such as the preventive restructuring instruments under the Directive. Therefore, it calls for a concentration of restructurings at the debtor’s COMI, which is in line with (and, upon a detailed examination, even envisioned by) both the EIR, and the Directive itself. In this respect, the study, using state-of-the-art European Union law methodology, extracts a coherent and consistent private international law framework for confidential restructuring procedures, centered at the debtor’s COMI, and recognized throughout the EU. At the same time, it proposes legislative amendments to the current system to clarify the private international law rules on cross-border restructurings – both for parties involved and Member States experiencing competitive pressure – and to improve the (few) inadequacies under the current legal regime.

Overall, the study reveals that the applicable law concentrates – public and confidential – restructuring proceedings at the debtor’s COMI on the one hand, but on the other hand also guarantees EU-wide recognition of the restructuring results achieved. The collectivization of creditors and shareholders implemented – in substantive terms – by the Directive, thus, continues on the level of private international law, enabling the continuation of viable companies even in a cross-border context.

The European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP) has recently adopted a position paper on the proposal for a Council Regulation in matters of Parenthood.

The Group welcomes that the EU intends to legislate in this field, since parenthood is a status from which persons derive numerous rights and obligations.

However, the Group is of the opinion that there are important shortcomings in the proposal due to the narrow perspective taken and an insufficient consideration of the legal complexities concerning parenthood in cross-border situations. It therefore encourages a reconsideration of the proposal in the light of its observations.

The Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and the Small Claims Analysis Net 2 (SCAN2) Project consortium partners and are organising a final conference regarding Small Claims Dispute Resolution on 22-23 February 2024.

The SCAN2 final conference will be organised around two main pillars: first, present the acquired research results of the SCAN2 project to the public, and second, bringing together international academics, practitioners, PhDs, and stakeholders in a supranational forum aiming to discuss the latest legal developments on the existing legal remedies for the small claims models of dispute resolutions for consumers within the European Union.

The call for papers concerns the second pillar of the conference focused on the latest developments and sharing of knowledge in relation to the European models of small claims dispute resolution and online dispute resolution (ODR).

Special consideration will be made for the topics discussing the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (EU) 861/2007 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421), but the organisers encourage submissions also on the following topics: small claims remedies for consumers; online dispute resolution for small claims; cross-border justice for consumers; small claims judgment and enforcement challenges; consumer privacy and data protection in using technology for resolving small claims; the connection between the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order and the European Account Preservation Order and their implementation in national procedural law; best national and supranational practices of national small claims proceedings; digitalisation of small claims proceedings; different fora for the initiation of the small claims proceedings; relationship between the Digital Service Act and ODR for consumers; the future of consumer ODR; and the revision of the new ADR directive and small claims.

Additional information can be found here. Enquiries concerning the academic aspects of the event and the call for papers should be directed to the Conference Chair, Marco Giacalone, at marco.giacalone@vub.be. All other enquiries should be addressed to seyedeh.sajedeh.salehi@vub.be or paola.giacalone@vub.be.

The Spanish Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations (AEPDIRI) is organizing its VII Seminar on current issues in Private International Law on the topic A Private International Law centred on the rights of individuals. The seminar will take place at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Pontificia Comillas (ICADE) in Madrid (https://www.comillas.edu) on 14 March 2024.

The Seminar is intended to discuss topics related to the challenges posed by the rights of individuals from a broad perspective and from a Private International Law dimension, related to the following thematic lines: Current issues raised by the regulation of the capacity of persons in Private International Law; Current issues raised by the regulation of parentage in international situations; The rights of vulnerable persons from a Private International Law dimension; Challenges posed by digitisation to the rights of the individual in private cross-border situations; Due diligence obligations in value chains and Private International Law; Civil liability of multinationals for human rights violations; New challenges in Immigration Law; Migrants’ rights from a Private International Law perspective.

Researchers are welcome to propose presentations which should cover one of the above-mentioned questions. Proposals should fit into the objectives of the Seminar and will be selected –for their oral presentation and/or publication- according to their relevance, quality and originality in respect to their contribution to the development of Private International Law studies.

Proposals should be submitted, following the requirements of the call, no later than 15 January 2024, by e-mail to: seminarioactualidad.dipr2024@aepdiri.org.

The working language of the Seminar will be Spanish, but papers may be also presented in English or French.

The submission of abstracts for selection as well as the participation to the Seminar are free of charge.

A new book entitled Blockchain and Private International Law has been published by Brill. It is available in open access and may be downloaded here. A book launch will take place on 20 December 2023 at 18:15 CET online and at the University of Lausanne (here is the link to the livestream).

The authors of the books are experts from various jurisdictions. The editors are Andrea Bonomi, Matthias Lehmann, and Shaheeza Lalani. It comprises five parts with overall 26 chapters.

The first part focuses on fundamental issues. It addresses the foundations of Distributed Ledger Technology (Tetsuo Morishita), the principle of technological neutrality  (Bruno Mathis), the general significance of private international law for crypto assets (David Sindres), property law issues associated with them (Christiane Wendehorst), as well as the problem of blockchain pseudonymity as an obstacle for the determination of the applicable law (Anne-Grace Kleczewski).

The second part addresses general conflict-of-laws problems raised by the blockchain. A taxonomy of crypto assets is given (Felix Krysa), the (in)significance of the situs is analysed (Amy Held), policy decisions are examined (Burcu Yüksel Ripley and Florian Heindler), and the law governing digital representations of off-chain assets is discussed (Emeric Prévost).

The third part examines specific crypto assets and legal relationships. It deals with central bank digital currencies (Caroline Kleiner), stablecoins (Matthias Lehmann and Hannes Meyle), blockchain torts  (Tobias Lutzi), insolvency issues (Giovanni Maria Nori and Matteo Girolametti), the law applicable to secured transactions on the blockchain (Matthias Haentjens and Matthias Lehmann), smart contracts (Mehdi El Harrak), blockchain-based negotiable instruments (Koji Takahashi), and crypto derivatives (Gregory Chartier).

The fourth part focuses on blockchain dispute resolution. In particular, the importance of the DAO for dispute resolution is investigated (Florence Guillaume and Sven Riva), and the recognition and enforcement blockchain-based decisions is analysed (Pietro Ortolani).

The fifth part of the book contains country reports. Represented are the legal systems of Switzerland (Pascal Favrod-Coune and Kévin Belet), the United States (Frank Emmert), Germany (Felix M. Wilke), in Liechtenstein (Francesco A. Schurr and Angelika Layr) and Japan (Tetsuo Morishita).

On 7 November 2023, less than three weeks after the judgment in Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd (reported here), where the High Court of England and Wales applied the forum non conveniens doctrine to a business and human rights claim, the Inner House of the Scottish Court of Session (Scotland’s supreme civil court) directed around 5,000 Kenyan tea pickers in Campbell v James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd to pursue their claims for occupational injuries in Kenya (previous judgments in this case included [2022] CSIH 29, which addressed the certification of group proceedings, and [2022] CSOH 57, which concerned a motion for anti-suit interdict).

The case and the Inner House’s judgment are notably unusual for several reasons.

Let’s begin with the facts. The claimants, Kenyan tea pickers, brought proceedings against James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd, a Scottish company, in Scotland. Unusually for a transnational business and human rights dispute, the defendant directly employed the claimants in Kenya. No Kenyan subsidiary or supplier was involved in the alleged wrongs. This enabled the claimants to advance relatively straightforward negligence claims for breach of employer’s duty of care.

Everyone agreed that prima facie the court had jurisdiction under rule 1 in Schedule 8 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which is a rule of general jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile. The defendant challenged the court’s jurisdiction on two grounds: the existence of an exclusive Kenyan choice-of-court agreement and forum non conveniens.

The defendant relied on rule 6 in Schedule 8 to the 1982 Act to argue that the Scottish courts had no jurisdiction due to an exclusive Kenyan choice-of-court agreement. This is an unusual argument as this provision deals with the prorogation, not derogation, of jurisdiction of the Scottish courts, and a foreign jurisdiction agreement does not take away jurisdiction from an otherwise competent Scottish court but serves as a significant factor when deciding whether jurisdiction should be exercised. The court did not engage with these subtleties of Scottish private international law. It promptly dismissed this jurisdictional challenge by concluding, quite rightly, that the contract clause in question (“9. Industrial Sickness: The terms of the relevant national legislation shall apply.”) was not a choice-of-court agreement.

A glaring omission in the judgment is the court’s failure to acknowledge that in employment disputes the jurisdiction of the UK courts depends on sections 15A and C-E of the 1982 Act. These provisions transpose the jurisdictional rules for employment matters from the Brussels I bis Regulation into UK law. Consequently, the Scottish courts had jurisdiction over the Scottish-domiciled defendant (section 15C(2)(a)) and a choice-of-court clause in the employment contract could not deprive the claimants of this forum. The protective jurisdictional rules may be departed from only by an agreement made ex post or expanding the available forums for the employee (section 15C(6)). In other words, there was no need to even look at the dispute resolution clause for the purposes of addressing the first jurisdictional challenge.

The court then proceeded to consider forum non conveniens. The defendant contended that a no-fault compensation scheme established by the Work Injury Benefits Act 2007 in Kenya barred claims for damages, insisting that the claimants should pursue compensation under this scheme.

A preliminary question remained unaddressed: is forum non conveniens available when a UK court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute under section 15C?

The primary aim of sections 15A and C-E was, as articulated in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying a statutory instrument which was used to transpose the jurisdictional rules for employment matters from Brussels I bis into UK law, “to ensure employees are not disadvantaged by EU exit”. Prior to Brexit, jurisdiction under Brussels I bis was mandatory (Owusu). There are other reasons against the availability of forum non conveniens in this context. It may be inconsistent with the objective of employee protection (for the strength of this objective under sections 15A and C-E, see, for example, Gagliari v Evolution Capital Management). If a foreign choice-of-court agreement can only be effective if made ex post or if it expands the available forums for the employee, allowing forum non conveniens, which is normally a less strong reason for staying proceedings, might seem contradictory. Sections 15A and C-E allow the employee to serve the claim form on the employer as of right in England, eliminating the need to seek permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. It appears inconsistent not to require the claimant to show that the forum is forum conveniens in service out cases, but to allow the defendant to plead forum non conveniens. Consequently, it is unsurprising that leading scholars (A Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts (2nd edn, OUP 2022) 194 and L Merrett, Employment Contracts and Private International Law (2nd edn), OUP 2022) 165) suggest that forum non conveniens might not be available in this context.

On the other hand, section 49 of the 1982 Act unequivocally provides that “Nothing in this Act shall prevent any court in the United Kingdom from staying, sisting, striking out or dismissing any proceedings before it, on the ground of forum non conveniens or otherwise, where to do so is not inconsistent with the 2005 Hague Convention.” Additionally, there is the authority of Dicey, Morris and Collins, who, in para 12-012, adopt a tentative view that forum non conveniens is available when a UK court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute under section 15C.

It is a shame that the court did not address this preliminary question of the availability of forum non conveniens.

The Lord Ordinary (first instance judge) decided, relying on expert evidence, that the Kenyan Work Injury Benefits Act 2007 did not apply to the claimants because it did not list back injury as a condition for the no-fault compensation scheme. Although the Act did allow for the possibility of the responsible official listing new conditions, no such decision had been made. He further rejected the plea of forum non conveniens because he decided that the claimants would not obtain justice in the Kenyan courts.

The Inner House disagreed. It found that the Act applied to the claimant’s occupational injuries. It further noted that the no-fault compensation scheme “is said to work well and is cost and lawyer free” ([67]). On the basis of all of this, the court held, at [69], that:

Having regard to the court’s construction of the WIBA, the appropriate manner of proceeding is to sist these proceedings pending resolution of the claims under the WIBA, including any appeals to the [Employment and Labour Relations Court], in Kenya. If the court’s construction, or its understanding of the practical operation of the WIBA, turn out to be ill-founded, or if the WIBA claims were not determined in accordance with the scheme, or if there were to be excessive delay, the court may have to revisit the question of substantial justice and consider whether the sist should be recalled. However, the court cannot determine, as matters presently stand, that the WIBA, if it operates as its terms suggest, is not capable of providing substantial justice. The concept of such justice applies to both parties and envelops the general public interest.

Leaving aside the point that the court invoked here a public interest factor, which sits uneasily with the House of Lords decision in Lubbe v Cape Plc, one gains the impression from this paragraph that the court applied a kind of conditional forum non conveniens doctrine.

But then one reads the next paragraph, where the court said that it was not applying forum non conveniens:

The court will recall the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 11 July 2023 in so far as it repels the defenders’ second plea-in-law (on forum non conveniens). It will allow the reclaiming motion and sist the group proceedings (GP1/22) pending resolution of the group members’ claims in Kenya under the WIBA scheme. It will not determine the plea of forum non conveniens at present.

One is at a loss what to make of this. The court evidently exercised a form of inherent power to sist the proceedings. But there is no attempt to explain the origin or nature of this power or its interaction with forum non conveniens.

All of this amounts to a very confusing (and confused) judgment. Hopefully, the case will find its way to the Supreme Court. The case is just too important to be decided in this way.

 

— I am grateful to Professor Adrian Briggs and Professor Louise Merrett for sharing their insights regarding the availability of forum non conveniens when a UK court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute under section 15C of the 1982 Act. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to Dr Bobby Lindsay for explaining specific points of Scottish law and for sharing a case note on the first instance judgment in this case, which will be published in the January edition of the Edinburgh Law Review. Finally, I thank Andrew Smith KC and Cameron Smith, who clarified some aspects of this litigation and offered thoughts on the likelihood of obtaining permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Any mistakes or omissions in this post are solely mine.