EAPIL blog

From November 15 to 17, the members of the Working Group on International Property Law held a first meeting in Würzburg. Everyone was warmly welcomed by the chair of the working group, Eva-Maria Kieninger. The group assembled in a hybrid way, so that members who could not join in person, had the opportunity to participate online. This very first meeting already led to fruitful discussions and successful results.

The three-day meeting was kicked off by all members presenting the rules on international property law of their own country, as well as other countries. Statutory provisions and case law were discussed. The national reports covered the jurisdictions of Belgium, France, England, Germany, Hungary, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, the Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden), Poland, Portugal, and Scotland.

The members spent the rest of their time in Würzburg discussing several specific topics, relevant for the project. They debated inter alia on the specific nature of cultural goods, the ambit of party autonomy in the context of immovable security rights, the influence of the free movement rules on international property law, several possibilities to solve the conflit mobile problem for movables, and whether Article 345 TFEU can form an obstacle for a future Regulation on international property law.

More details on the Working Group can be found here.

As far as PIL is concerned, December 2021  at the CJEU starts with AG M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s opinion on C-645/20, VA and ZA, scheduled Thursday the 2nd. The request for a preliminary reference, from the French Cour de Cassation, focuses on the ex officio application of Article 10 of Regulation 650/2012:

“Must Article 10(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession be interpreted as meaning that, where the habitual residence of the deceased at the time of death is not located in a Member State, the court of a Member State in which the deceased had not established his habitual residence but which finds that the deceased had the nationality of that State and held assets in it must, of its own motion, examine whether it has subsidiary jurisdiction under that article?”

The appointed judges are  E. Regan, I. Jarukaitis, M. Ilešič, D. Gratsias, and Z. Csehi, with M. Ilešič acting as reporting judge.

An opinion on Regulation (CE) n° 261/2004 is expected one week later, this time by AG A. Rantos. The question in C-561/20, United Airlines, was referred by the Nederlandstalige Ondernemingsrechtbank Brussel (Belgium). In the case at hand, the applicant (on the merits) disputes the applicability of Regulation No 261/2004 in the event of a long delay to a flight departing from, and arriving in the territory of the United States of America, even where that flight is the last flight of two directly connecting flights, the first of which departs from an airport in the territory of a Member State. The questions read as follows:

“Should Article 3(1)(a) and Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, as interpreted by the Court of Justice, be interpreted as meaning that passengers are entitled to financial compensation from a non-Community air carrier when they arrive at their final destination with a delay of more than three hours as a result of a delay of the last flight, the place of departure and the place of arrival of which are both situated in the territory of a third country, without a stopover in the territory of a Member State, in a series of connecting flights commencing at an airport situated in the territory of a Member State, all of which have been physically operated by that non-Community air carrier and all of which have been reserved in a single booking by the passengers with a Community air carrier which has not physically operated any of those flights?

If the first question is answered in the affirmative, does Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights, and repealing Regulation (EEC) No 295/91, as interpreted in the first question, infringe international law and, in particular, the principle of the exclusive and complete sovereignty of a State over its territory and airspace, in making EU law applicable to a situation taking place within the territory of a third country?”

The deciding chamber is integrated by judges C. Lycourgos, S. Rodin, J.C. Bonichot, L.S. Rossi, and O. Spineanu-Matei. S. Rodin will act as reporting judge.

On the same day, a chamber of three judges, namely Jääskinen, Safjan (reporting), and Gavalec, will deliver its judgement on C-708/20, BT, a set of questions from the County Court at Birkenhead on Article 13 (3), of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The referral was made on December 30, 2020.

1. Is it a requirement of Article 13(3) of the Regulation (EC) No. 1215/2012 that the cause of action on which the injured party relies in asserting a claim against the policy holder/insured involves a matter relating to insurance?
2. If the answer to (a) is “yes”, is the fact that the claim which the injured party seeks to bring against the policy holder/insured arises out of the same facts as, and is being brought in the same action as the direct claim brought against the insurer sufficient to justify a conclusion that the injured party’s claim  is a matter relating to insurance even though  the cause of action between the injured party and the policy holder/insured is unrelated to insurance?
3. Further and alternatively, if the answer to (a) is “yes”, is the fact that there is a dispute between the insurer and injured party concerning the validity or effect  of the insurance policy sufficient to justify a conclusion that the injured party’s claim is a matter relating to insurance?
4. If the answer to (a) is “no”, is it sufficient that the joining of the policy holder/insured to the direct action against the insurer is permitted by the law governing the direct action against the insurer?

No opinion precedes this judgement in spite of the novelty of the questions.

The decision on C-242/20, HRVATSKE ŠUME will be delivered as well on December 9, 2021. The request was referred by the Visoki trgovački sud Republike Hrvatske (cour d’appel de commerce, Croatie). The questions, still on the Brussels I Regulation, were asked in the context of a dispute between a company incorporated under Croatian law, and a company established in Hamburg (Germany), over a sum of money seized on the bank account of the first company and transferred to the assets of the second as part of an enforcement procedure. As this procedure was subsequently invalidated, the applicant in the main proceedings seeks restitution of the sum in question on the basis of unjust enrichment:

1. Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 … in respect of ‘quasi-delicts’, since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia:: ‘A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued … in matters relating to … quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur’?
2. Since there is a time limit on seeking recovery of sums unduly paid in the same judicial enforcement proceedings, do civil proceedings which have been initiated fall within exclusive jurisdiction under Article 22(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 … which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the Member State in which the judgment has been or is to be enforced is to have exclusive jurisdiction, regardless of domicile?

On September 8, 2021 Advocate general Saugmandsgaard Øe proposed to answer that Article 5 (1) and Article 5 (3) of the Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that a claim for restitution based on unjust enrichment:

– does not fall within the “contractual matter”, within the meaning of the first provision, except when it is closely linked to a previous contractual relationship existing, or supposed to exist, between the parties to the dispute, and

– does not fall within the “tort or quasi-tort”, within the meaning of the second provision.

(NoA: the English translation of the opinion is not yet available).

The judges in charge are K. Jürimäe (reporting), S. Rodin and N. Piçarra

Next relevant date for the purposes of this blog will be Thursday 16th, with the publication of AG P. Pikamäe’s opinion on C-568/20, H Limited. The question was sent to the Court by the Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria), on a dispute related to the enforcement of an order based on a decision of the High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts of England & Wales, Commercial Court (QBD):

1. Are the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Regulation No 1215/2012’), in particular Article 2(a) and Article 39, to be interpreted as meaning that a judgment that is to be enforced exists even if, in a Member State, the judgment debtor is obliged, after summary examination in adversarial proceedings, albeit relating only to the binding nature of the force of res judicata of a judgment given against him in a third State, to pay to the party who was successful in the third State proceedings the debt that was judicially recognised in the third State, when the subject matter of the proceedings in the Member State was limited to examination of the existence of a claim derived from the judicially recognised debt against the judgment debtor?
2. If question 1 is answered in the negative: Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 45, 46 and 52, to be interpreted as meaning that, irrespective of the existence of one of the grounds set out in Article 45 of Regulation No 1215/2012, enforcement must be refused if the judgment under review is not a judgment within the meaning of Article 2(a) or Article 39 of Regulation No 1215/2012 or the application in the Member State of origin on which the judgment is based does not fall within the scope of Regulation No 1215/2012?

3. If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative: Are the provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012, in particular Articles 1, 2(a), 39, 42(1)(b), 46 and 53, to be interpreted as meaning that, in proceedings concerning an application for refusal of enforcement, the court of the Member State addressed is compelled to assume, on the basis solely of the information provided by the court of origin in the certificate issued pursuant to Article 53 of Regulation No 1215/2012, that a judgment that falls within the scope of the regulation and is to be enforced exists?

The deciding chamber will be one of five judges: K. Jürimäe, N. Jääskinen, N. Piçarra, M: Gavalec, and M. Safjan in the role of reporting judge.

Just for the record: the decision on C-490/20, Stolichna obshtina, rayon „Pancharevo“, is expected on December 14th. AG J. Kokott’s opinion was published last April (for a summary click here).

The author of this post is Burcu Yüksel Ripley, who is a Senior Lecturer in law and the Director of the Centre for Commercial Law at the University of Aberdeen.

On 25 November 2021, the Law Commission of England and Wales announced, as part of an update on its work on smart contracts, that it has agreed with the Government to undertake a project on conflict of laws and emerging technology. This project will look at conflict of laws rules as they apply to emerging technology (including smart legal contracts and digital assets) and consider whether law reform is required. The Commission hopes to be able to begin work in the first half of 2022.

Conflict of laws and emerging technology was among the ideas for potential areas of law reform within the scope the Law Commission’s 14th programme of law reform. In the area of commercial and common law with a focus on emerging technology, the Commission has been working on three projects on smart contracts, digital assets and electronic trade documents which are, to some extent, interconnected. Its work on these projects has identified certain difficulties with the application of conflict of laws rules (covering both jurisdiction and applicable law rules in this context) in relation to emerging technology, including distributed ledger technology (DLT):

• In the context of its work on smart contacts, which the Commission concluded with a confirmation that the existing law of England and Wales is able to accommodate and support smart legal contacts, it devoted Chapter 7 of its advice to Government on smart legal contacts (published on 25 November 2021) to ‘Jurisdiction and smart legal contracts’. The Commission considered various issues concerning jurisdiction and applicable law in relation to smart contacts and assessed that “the problem of digital location – that is, the difficulty of ascribing real-world locations to digital actions and digital objects – is amongst the most significant challenges that private international law will have to overcome in relation to emerging technology, including smart legal contracts.” (see paragraph 7.145 of the advice).
• In the context of its work on digital assets, which seeks to support and facilitate the development of digital assets and ensure that the law recognises and protects them in a digitised world, conflict of laws is mentioned in the call for evidence (published on 30 April 2021) as an area which is likely to be affected by the issues covered by the call for evidence. The Commission therefore sought to hear more details from respondents on conflict of laws issues relating to digital assets (see para 2.80 of the call for evidence on digital assets). The digital assets project is currently at the pre-consultation stage, with the expectation that the consultation paper will be published in mid-2022. An interim update paper on this project is available here.
• In the context of its work on electronic trade documents, which seeks to make recommendations for law reform to allow for legal recognition of electronic trade documents (eg bills of lading and bills of exchange), some conflict of laws issues relating to electronic trade documents were highlighted in the consultation paper (published on 30 April 2021, see in particular pp.124-127 of the consultation paper on digital assets: electronic trade documents). There were two main questions specifically mentioned in the consultation paper: 1) “Where is an electronic trade document located at any given time (and related questions such as where does a transfer take place)?” and 2) “How will an electronic trade document issued in England and Wales be treated in a country that does not recognise the validity of electronic trade documents?”. The Commission, in this consultation paper, provisionally proposed to consider the private international law aspects of digital assets, including electronic trade documents, as part of a separate project that could be taken as part of its 14th programme of law reform. The electronic trade documents project is currently at the policy development stage.

The Commission’s new project on conflict of laws and emerging technology is a very timely project. The Law Commission of England and Wales can only make recommendations for the law of England and Wales. However, some of its recommendations might have a UK-wide impact. This project should also be seen as an opportunity to help facilitate the development of internationally widely accepted private international law rules in relation to emerging technology given the current work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law concerning private international implications of the digital economy, including DLT and its applications (including digital assets).

DXB – Identities on the move – Documents cross borders is a project aimed at facilitating the dissemination and implementation of Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 in EU Member States, funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014–2020).

The final conference of the project will take place on 23–24 June 2022 in Castel San Pietro Terme, Bologna (Italy), at the premises of ANUSCA’s Academy (ANUSCA is the Italian association of civil status officers)

A call for papers and panels has been launched. All interested will find more information here.

Papers or panel abstract proposals shall be submitted by 22 December 2021.

Daniel B. Listwa (Wachtell, Lipton, Rosen & Katz) and Lea Brilmayer (Yale Law School) have posted Jurisdictional Problems, Comity Solutions: Lessons for the Restatement (Third) on SSRN:

American choice of law is today portrayed as a story of how a more modern and functionalist methodology came to overthrow the long dominant territorial system. Against this background, the situs rule—the territorial rule requiring that all property-related issues be governed by the law of the jurisdiction in which the property is located—is seen as an unusual straggler of a now-debunked theory. Central to this narrative is the idea that the vested rights theory, which was embraced by the Restatement (First) of Conflict of Laws and assumed away the possibility for overlapping jurisdictions, represented “traditional” choice of law, going back to Justice Joseph Story, the father of American conflicts law. This is the perspective adopted by the now-in-the-works Restatement (Third), which aims to usher in a new era for American conflict of laws by cutting out all vestiges of the “traditional” model—the situs rule included.

But this narrative, while broadly held, is wrong. It is a mistake to associate choice of law during the early Republic with an early twentieth-century model of territorialism. In this Essay, we explain that the early American choice-of-law model, as described by Justice Story, was not territorial, but rather intensely functional, with its prime focus being resolving the uncertainty created by the constitutional law governing the limits of personal jurisdiction and the recognition of sister-state judgments. In this context, the persistence of the situs rule appears to be not an anachronism but rather an indication that “modern” choice-of-law theories misunderstand the forces shaping conflict–of–laws doctrine today. Using the situs rule as a window into the foundations of choice of law, this Essay thus calls into question the standard narrative underlying contemporary choice-of-law literature and challenges the approach of the proposed Restatement (Third).

The article is forthcoming in the Texas Law Review.

This post introduces the paper by Fernando Gascón and Guillermo Schumann published in Ius Dictum, 5, 2021, The rules on lis pendens and on res judicata in the ELI/UNIDROIT Model European Rules of Civil Procedure. A pre-print version of the article is available here. Many thanks to Guillermo Schumann for the input.

In 2020 the European Law Institute and UNIDROIT approved the European Rules of Civil Procedure (“ERCP”, also called “Model European Rules of Civil Procedure”): a set of rules intended to design a model, or, if preferred, an ideal civil procedure, with the potential to be operational in any European country. In that regard, it could be said that the ERCP aim to be a “Model Code of Civil Procedure” (although the “code” word has been purposely avoided by the Rules’ drafters) for European countries or, in a certain way, a sort of “Code of Best Practices”. Although a soft law instrument, the Rules stand as a unique text reflecting the outcome of an exhaustive and remarkable work of legal comparison by scholars and practitioners all around Europe (see on this point F. Gascón Inchausti, Las European Rules of Civil Procedure: ¿un punto de partida para la armonización del proceso civil?, Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, 2021).

The comparison has not only looked into national systems but has also considered existing European legislation and the acquis communautaire, as well as the case law of the CJEU and the European Court of Human Rights. The intention of the drafters has been to spot the best solution to difficulties faced by all legislators when planning a fair and efficient civil process —best practices or best rules approach—.

The paper by Fernando Gascón and Guillermo Schumann is devoted in particular to the rules on lis pendens (Rules 142-146) and res judicata (Rules 147-152), taking into account their mutual functional relationship, but also their interplay with other procedural institutions in the ERCP.

As stated, the ERCP map out a comprehensive model of a declaratory civil procedure in which the different parts of the Rules are interrelated and meant to work as a system on its own. Therefore, the proper understanding of each rule requires looking at it within the structure. Consequently, the solutions provided by a rule can only be considered as “the best” and as a “model” because they have been conceived to operate inside that systematic ensemble.

Lis pendens and res judicata are legal institutions belonging to the “hardcore” of all procedural legal orders and, because of that, they had to be addressed by the ERCP.

Lis pendens, the rules on related actions and res judicata tend, among other, to regulate the relationship between parallel proceedings, with the same or connected subject matters, that are ongoing or that have ended with a final judgment. This is a decisive issue for both domestic and cross-border litigation. Lis pendens aims at preserving the future negative effect of res judicata in cases of proceedings with identical subject matters, while the stay and consolidation of strongly connected proceedings serve the purpose of preserving its positive effect. Therefore, these legal institutions are necessarily connected among them, but also with others such as the very definition of the “subject matter” of the proceedings or the “preclusion of the cause of action”.

A main goal of the ERCP is indeed to provide for a complete and systematic body of rules where  all “pieces of the puzzle work together” in a coherent manner.

The regulation of lis pendens and related actions proposed in the ERCP is based on the Brussels I Regulation (recast) (Articles 29-32) and on the case law of the CJEU on it. The drafters of the ERCP, having in mind that the European provisions are already working within the Union, thus that the national courts are already familiar with them, considered transplantation into domestic litigation as the best option.

It should be noted, though, that the Brussels I Regulation (recast) aims at regulating the European lis pendens within legal orders having different understandings of the notion of the “subject matter of the dispute” – sometimes, of lis pendens itself. The main purpose of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) and of the case law of the Court of Justice is therefore to set up, from a functional perspective, a system capable to operate detached from the conceptual constructs of the member States. To do so, the Court of Justice has shaped autonomous notions as a way to keep the system operating where indispensable: lis pendens is one of these notions.

Moreover, the scope of the Brussels I Regulation (recast) is limited, both because of the legislative competence of the EU and of the scope of the legal instrument itself. By way of consequence, the EU lawmaker had to address a wide range of issues arising in situations of cross-border parallel proceedings with a limited range of legal tools. This has entailed that the CJEU has broadened (or narrowed, as the case may be) the traditional scope of legal institutions conferring upon them functions that are carried out by other means in the internal legal systems of the Member States.

By contrast, the ERCP have the possibility and the purpose of providing for a complete system. In that vein, a quasi-automatic import of the lis pendens rules from the Brussels I Regulation (recast) may not offer the best solution in all circumstances. Not surprisingly, some of the mismatches and shadows already pointed out by academia concerning the regulation of lis pendens in Brussels I Regulation (recast) appear to be present in the ERCP as well.

Having this in mind, the paper by Fernando Gascón and Guillermo Schumann tries to shed some light on how the lis pendens and related actions operate within the system of the ERCP. It examines the function of the lis pendens and its relationship with the subject matter of the proceedings, the priority principle as the general rule for lis pendens in the ERCP, the exceptions to this principle, the related-actions regime and its relationship with the consolidation of proceedings.

The Rules on Res Judicata in the ERCP

There are different ways to understand and establish the boundaries of res judicata in the many legal orders across Europe. Whether the notion is restrictive or broad usually depends on which part of a judgement becomes res judicata: whether only the operative part of it, or also the legal reasoning. There are also important differences regarding the types of judgments that become res judicata.

As has just been said, the rules on lis pendens and on the stay and consolidation of “strongly related” proceedings tend to preserve the future negative and positive effect of res judicata. Because of that, the scope of res judicata inevitably impacts the regulation of those legal institutions.

From this overall approach, the paper examines the concept of finality in the ERCP, the types of judgments that become res judicata, the material, temporal and subjective scope of res judicata and the powers of the court concerning its assessment. Special attention is paid to the attribution of res judicata to judgments on procedural issues — e.g., the CJEU decision in the Gothaer case —, and to the relationship between the material scope of res judicata and the preclusion of causes of action that, with a broader or more limited scope and following diverse conceptual constructions, is known to most European legal orders.

The European Rules of Civil Procedure are an exciting initiative that shows the utility of Comparative Law as a tool to improve the civil justice system and the protection of the citizens’ rights —at the end of the day, this is what it all is about—. They are a unique instrument, which, on the one hand, facilitates self-cognition in that they allow seeing oneself mirrored in the “others”; on the other, they booster the European harmonization of civil procedure on a common basis.

A webinar in English on Recent judgments on corporate responsibility for environmental damages will take place on 26 November 2021, from 15.00 to 17.00 CET, organised by the Interest Group on Private International Law of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI).

The speakers will be Olivera Boskovic and Silvia Marino.

The event is part of a cycle titled Private International Law in Europe: New Developments on Corporate Social Responsibility and Private International Law. See here for further details.

Attendance is free. Those wishing to join the webinar are invited to send an e-mail to sidigdipp@gmail.com.

Louis d’Avout (University Paris II Panthéon-Assas) has posted a short paper in French on the Resurgence of the 1934 Franco-British Convention on the Enforcement of Foreign Judgments (La résurgence de la convention franco-britannique du 18 janvier 1934 pour l’exécution des jugements étrangers) on the website of the French Committee for Private International Law.

Unlike the Haut Comité Juridique de la Place Financière de Paris, which has opined that the 1934 Convention was abrogated by the Brussels Convention, Prof. d’Avout submits that the 1934 bilateral convention is still in force and governs the enforcement of British judgments in France. He notes that the requirements for enforcing judgments are, from a French perspective, old and potentially more restrictive than the French common law of judgments, but underscores that the Convention was interpreted initially as allowing the application of a more favourable common law of judgments by the Contracting States.

The paper is the written version of a speech given in a recent conference on Brexit organised by the Committee.

The PAX Moot is a specialised moot court competition dedicated to students interested in Transnational Law and Private International Law issues. This year the Pax Moot Round is named after the Alegría Borrás Rodríguez (1943-2020).

The Borrás Round of the competition will require participants to deal with the complexities and nuances of how international conventions and European regulations interact with each other in the context of globalisation as well as situations such as Brexit where certain prior available instruments stop producing their effects. The case is grounded in the present challenging global events – the effects of COVID-19 virus on businesses and individuals, Brexit and environmental actions to reach carbon neutrality. The series of events to discuss involve the application of the Singapore Convention on Mediation and the European Order for Payment procedure.

The competition opens for the registration of the teams on 22 November 2022 and comprises a written and an oral round. The students participating in the PAX Moot will be required to address matters of jurisdiction, service of documents, settlement agreement and recognition of judgment in England.

More information about the competition and its timetable are available here. The rules of the competition are available here.

The new edition of the Commentary on EU-Zivilprozessrecht: EuZPR authored by Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. Peter Schlosser, Emeritus at the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich, and Professor Dr. Dres. h.c. Burkhard Hess, founding Director at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, has just been released.

The revised and extended version of the commentary assesses and explains the ever-increasing importance of the coordination of cross-border civil proceedings in the European Area of Civil Justice. In an easy to handle style and with a specific look to the needs of legal practice, the commentary elucidates the entire acquis of the European procedural law in civil and commercial matters. The eminent authors comment the Brussels Ibis Regulation (being the core instrument of judicial cooperation in the Union), the EU-Regulations of the European Order for Payment, of the European Enforcement Order, the Small Claims Regulation and the Regulation establishing a European Account Preservation Order Procedure. The EU-Regulations on the Service of Documents and on the Taking of Evidence are equally commented. With regard to the latter, the commentary already provides valuable guidance on the forthcoming recasts of the upcoming regulations (applicable in 2022).

Extensive references to case law, especially of the European Court of Justice, but also of national courts and the legal literature are the building blocks of the Commentary. The authors equally focus on current challenges such as the ramifications arising from Brexit and the relations to other third states. Overall, this commentary is a must be for legal practitioners and for academics working in this field.

The European Parliamentary Research Service of the European Parliament has issued on November 18th, 2021, a Briefing on The United Kingdom’s possible re-joining of the 2007 Lugano Convention.

The summary of the briefing reads as follows:

The 2007 Lugano Convention is an international treaty that regulates the free movement of court judgments in civil cases between the Member States of the EU, on one hand, and the three EFTA states (Switzerland, Norway and Iceland), on the other. The convention effectively extends the regime of quasi-automatic recognition and enforcement of judgments that was applicable between EU Member States at the time under the Brussels I Regulation (No 44/2001).

Whereas the EU rules currently in force regulating the free movement of judgments in civil cases between the EU Member States – the 2012 Brussels I-bis Regulation (1215/2012) – bring about an even higher level of integration and presume, therefore, a very high level of mutual trust between the national judiciaries of the Member States, relations between the EU and EFTA Member States remain at the level of integration prescribed in 2001 by the Brussels I Regulation.

Following the expiry of the transition period provided for by the Withdrawal Agreement between the United Kingdom (UK) and the EU, the UK is no longer bound by either the Brussels I-bis Regulation or the 2007 Lugano Convention. Given the fact that the latter is open not only to EU and EFTA Member States, but also explicitly to third countries, the UK has made a bid to re-join the Lugano Convention. For a third country to become part of this legal regime, all parties to the convention must give their explicit consent. Whereas this has been the case with Switzerland, Norway and Iceland, the European Commission, acting on behalf of the EU as a party to the 2007 Lugano Convention, has indicated that it is not prepared to grant such consent, effectively blocking – for the moment – the UK’s reintegration within the Lugano regime of mutual recognition of civil judgments.

For the Commission, accession to the Lugano regime is bound up with the notion of close economic integration with the EU, presupposing a high level of mutual trust. Participation in the Lugano system should not therefore be offered to any third country that is not part of the internal market.

As announced earlier on this blog, the EAPIL Founding Conference will eventually take place on 2, 3 and 4 June 2022 in Aarhus, hosted by the Aarhus University.

Early bird registration for the conference ends on 30 November 2021. See here for further details.

A general presentation of the conference can be found here. See here for the full program as well as for details on venue, travel and accommodation.

For more information, please write an e-mail to Morten Midtgaard Fogt at mmf@law.au.dk.

The fourth issue of the Journal du droit international for 2021 has just been released. It contains two articles and several case notes relating to private international law issues, including the 2020 annual case-law review of EU private international law supervised by Louis d’Avout (University of Paris II).

In the first article, the International Law Association (ILA) pays tribute to the memory of Philippe Kahn (Hommage à Philippe Kahn, by Catherine Kessedjian, Geneviève Bastid Burdeau, Éric Loquin, Jean-Michel Jacquet, Marie Cornu, Ali Bencheneb & Franck Latty).

The English abstract reads:

Philippe Kahn was above all a researcher, an inventive person, an explorer. The French Branch of the International Law Association paid tribute to him on April 8, 2021. The tribute, in its entirety, is available on Youtube. The texts reproduced here concern only his scientific contributions highlighted by the authors in the various fields that his insatiable curiosity led him to tackle: international contracts, the financing of international trade, cultural heritage and the art market, outer space, to mention just a few aspects of his work.

In the second article, Gwendoline Lardeux (Aix-Marseille University) analyses some difficult private international law issues in real property matters (De certaines hypothèses délicates du droit international privé des immeubles).

The English abstract reads:

The autonomous concepts of European conflict of laws are progressively shaped, litigation after litigation, through Court of justice, as European substantive law as such is lacking. This jurisdiction is therefore referring to International private law goals to choose or reject any qualification. This is clearly the case for the immovable suit. The different regulations on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters provide indeed an exclusive jurisdictional competence to the courts of the situs rei « in proceedings which have as their object rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property » (see Reg. Brussels I bis, art. 24, 1°, al. 1er). Those both hypotheses are raising difficult legal qualification issues regarding numerous intricate contracts or institutions.

A full table of contents can be downloaded here.

An Austrian national (A) was born in 1975 as a woman. In 2010, at A’s request, the Austrian authorities changed A’ first name, and in 2016 A’s gender to “male”. A married a German male national in July 2019 in Berlin. On the same day, A gave birth to their common child there. The German authorities were unsure about how to enter A into the birth register.

On 21 January 2021, the Court of Appeal Berlin (Kammergericht) rendered a Solomonic judgment (docket number 1 W 1290/20, published in NJW-RR 2021, p. 387, paywall access here). It ruled that A was to be registered as the child’s mother, but that A’s gender was to be recorded as “male”. This solution was reached through applying a combination of the formal rules governing the birth register, conflict-of-laws rules, and an interpretation of substantive law.

The Court justified the registration of A as a “mother” by the formal procedural rules governing the German civil status (Personenstandsgesetz) as the lex fori. According to these rules, the person giving birth to the child is to be registered as the mother, independently of their gender. A’s status as a mother would follow from the fact that A had given birth to the child.

The Court also tried to justify this rather formalistic solution by the law applicable to the substantive legal relationship between A and the child. In order to do so, it had to identify the law applicable to kinship.

The Court highlighted that since the child has its habitual residence in Germany, German law applied to the relation of kinship (Article 19(1) 1 of the German Introductory Act to the Civil Code – EGBGB). Yet in addition to habitual residence, German international family law provides further connecting factors with the goal of establishing, as far as possible, a parent-child relationship. In particular, the relationship of descent from a parent can also be derived from the law of the state of this parent’s nationality (see Art 19(1) 2 EGBGB). In the present case, given A’s Austrian nationality, this would lead to Austrian law. Finally, kinship could also be established under the law governing the general effects of the marriage (Art 19(1) 3 EGBGB). Under German conflicts law, the general effects of same-sex marriages are, in the absence of a choice of law by the spouses, submitted to the law where the same-sex marriage is registered (Art 17b(4) EGBGB).  In the present case, this again led to German law. Hence, German and Austrian law apply to questions of kinship, with a preference for the law that is more likely to establish a parent-child-relationship.

A substantive problem is that the German Civil Code defines the mother of a child as the “woman who gave birth to the child” (sec. 1591 German Civil Code – BGB). A very similar provision exists under Austrian law (sec. 143 Austrian Civil Code – ABGB). Seemingly, these provisions do not allow a man to be registered as a mother.

However, the German Federal Court had previously held that the role of the mother and the female gender must always be attributed to the person giving birth to the child (Bundesgerichtshof, decision of 6 September 2017 – XII ZB 660/14). It is true that the Act on Transsexuals, on which the Federal Supreme Court had relied, was not applicable given that A had changed its name and gender abroad, i.e., under Austrian law. Nevertheless, the Berlin Court of Appeal followed the precedent set by the Federal Supreme Court. It argued that the notions “mother” and “woman” in sec. 1591 BGB would refer to a specific role in the procreation of the child, and were to be understood in a biological and not in a legal sense. Since A had given birth to the child, A would have to be considered as the mother and consequently also as a “woman” for the purposes of this provision.

The Berlin Court of Appeal also pointed out that A could not be registered as a father, despite being male. A did not meet the necessary requirements to be registered as the child’s father, as he was neither married to the mother at the time of the child’s birth, nor has his paternity been acknowledged or established by the court (sec. 1592 German Civil Code – BGB). Moreover, under German law, every child can only have one father and one mother. As A’s husband had been registered as the father, this role was precluded for A. The Court also pointed out that gender-neutral registration is not foreseen under German law.

In Austria, no special rules exist for transsexual persons as mothers. Yet the Court of Appeal pointed to the Austrian practice under which a woman who had changed her gender before giving birth to a child could be entered into the central civil status register as the mother. The result would be basically the same as under German law.

With regard to the recording of A’s gender in the birth register, the Berlin Court of Appeal referred to Art 7 EGBGB, which submits questions concerning the legal personality and legal capacity of natural persons to the law of their nationality. This provision would apply, by analogy, also to gender identity. Hence, Austrian law was applicable. The Court remarked that the Austrian authorities had issued a birth certificate for A with the gender “male”. Similar documents had been submitted for purposes of the wedding. The Austrian authorities had also recorded A’s gender as male when registering the child’s birth in the general civil status register. There could therefore be no serious doubt about A’s gender. The Austrian acts and documents would have to be respected in Germany. As a result, a man was registered as a mother.

The case illustrates the need for reform to German and Austrian family law. Both still are based on the assumption that the mother of a child is always a woman, which is no longer universally true, as illustrated by the present case. The Berlin Court of Appeal’s distinction between the sex in a biological sense and gender a legal sense can hardly convince when applied in a purely legal context. Where someone is recognised as having a certain gender, this must apply in all legal circumstances. The proper solution therefore would be to define the mother purely functionally as the person giving birth to remove the reference to a “woman” in both sec. 1591 German BGB and sec. 143 Austrian ABGB. This could be best done by a change of the law; in the absence of such reform, an adaptive interpretation is indispensable.

With regard to A’s gender, the Berlin Court of Appeal could have shortened its ruling. It should simply have accepted the Austrian documents on the basis of the CJEU case law that demands the recognition of civil status acts rendered in other Member States (see for the registration of names e.g. CJEU, C-391/09, Runevič-Vardyn and Wardyn). A conflicts analysis was therefore unnecessary in this context.

On 15 November 2021, the JURI committee of the European Parliament held a hearing on EU Private International Law. The focus was on issues that would need to be addressed in a review of the current rules, including as regards Corporate Due Diligence and SLAPPs (Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation).

Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin, and Secretary General of EAPIL), Geert Van Calster (Leuven University), and Olivera Boskovic (Université Paris Déscartes) took part in the hearing.

The video recording of the hearing can be found here.

On 1 December 2021, at 3 pm CET, the University of Catania will host a webinar, in French, titled Différences culturelles et droit international privé de la famille (Cultural differences and Private International Law in Family Matters), organised by Pasquale Pirrone.

The main speakers are Jean-Yves Carlier (Catholic University of Louvain) and Léna Gannagé (Saint Joseph University, Beirut). Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (University of Macerata) and Roberto Baratta (Roma Tre University), among others, will also intervene.

Attendance is free, via Teams. Further details here.

On 11 November 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its judgment in Bank Sepah v. Overseas Financial Limited (case C‑340/20).

The judgment clarifies the effect of the freezing of assets pursuant to European (and U.N.) sanctions on the right of creditors to attach the said assets.

In this case, the sanctions were the restrictive measures against Iran  implemented by Regulation (EC) No 423/2007 of 19 April 2007 and several subsequent regulations replacing it (‘the Regulations’). Regulation 423/2007 froze the assets and resources of certain listed entities. One of them was Iranian bank Sepah.

Article 1 (h) and (j) of Regulation 423/2007 provided:

‘freezing of funds’ means preventing any moving, transfer, alteration, use of, access to, or dealing with funds in any way that would result in any change in their volume, amount, location, ownership, possession, character, destination or other change that would enable the funds to be used, including portfolio management;

‘freezing of economic resources’ means preventing the use of economic resources to obtain funds, goods or services in any way, including, but not limited to, by selling, hiring or mortgaging them;

The issue was whether attaching preventively assets subject to such sanctions fell within these definitions and was thus forbidden. In this case, U.S. creditors were seeking to enforce a French judgment against bank Sepah and had sought enforcement and conservative measures. In a judgment of July 10th, 2020, the French supreme court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) considered that the situation was clear enough for enforcement measures, but asked the CJUE whether the Regulations prevented granting conservative measures as well.

The US creditors were Delaware companies Overseas Financial Limited and Oaktree Finance Limited. They were seeking to enfore a French judgment against Bank Sepah, a company established in Iran.

After obtaining partial payments made between 2007 and 2011, Overseas Financial and Oaktree Finance on 2 December 2007 requested that the French Minister for the Economy authorise the release of the outstanding amount pursuant to Article 8 of Regulation No 423/2007. Overseas Financial and Oaktree Finance brought an action for annulment against the implicit rejection of their request before the Administrative Court of Paris, which dismissed that action by judgment of 21 October 2013.

On 17 May 2016, Overseas Financial and Oaktree Finance issued formal notices of attachment and sale against Bank Sepah before attaching, on 5 July 2016, receivables, shareholder rights and transferable securities held by a French bank. By judgment of 9 January 2017, the enforcement court of Paris confirmed those attachments and their amount, including the interest provided for by the judgment of the Court of Appeal of Paris of 26 April 2007. While Bank Sepah accepted that it was required to pay the principal amounts ordered against it, it argued that it was not liable for the interest and it therefore contested the enforcement measures before that enforcement court. It inter alia argued that it could not be held liable for interest, taking the view that it had been prevented from paying its debt by a case of force majeure arising from the freezing of its assets by Regulation No 423/2007, which had the effect of suspending the running of that interest.

The French Cour de cassation referred two questions to the CJEU.

The first was concerned with the meaning of the concept of changing the ‘destination’ of the frozen funds under Article 1(h). The referring Court wondered whether a subsequent freeze of the assets by a national conservative measure amounted to such a change.

More specifically, the Cour de cassation ruled that, while it thought it likely that an enforcement measure transferring the ownership of the frozen asset would change its destination, it was less clear for conservative measures, which would not result in such a transfer to the benefit of the creditor.

The Cour de cassation insisted on particular feature of French conservative measures: they not only freeze assets, but they also grant an in rem right to the creditor, and thus a right to paid in priority over the relevant funds.

The second question was whether the origin of the claim that the creditor sought to enforce was relevant. In the case at hand, the claims of the U.S. creditors were unconnected to the Nuclear Programme of Iran, or any other activity which justified the sanctions.

As to the first question, the CJEU responded that the freezing of assets under the Regulations do prevent further attachement, even if such attachements are not enforcement measures.

46 In terms of measures such as those at issue in the main proceedings, which establish a right to be paid on a priority basis over other creditors in favour of the creditor concerned, it must be stated, as the Advocate General observed in points 55 to 61 of his Opinion, that such measures have the effect of changing the destination of frozen funds and are liable to permit the use of frozen economic resources to obtain funds, goods or services.

47 It follows that such measures fall within the concepts of ‘freezing of funds’ and ‘freezing of economic resources’ within the meaning of Article 1(h) and (j) and Article 7(1) of Regulation No 423/2007.

48 The fact that such measures do not have the effect of removing assets from the debtor’s estate cannot call that conclusion into question.

49 (…) the concept of ‘freezing of funds’ encompasses any use of funds which results, inter alia, in a change in the destination of those funds, even if such use of the funds does not have the effect of removing assets from the debtor’s estate.

As to the second question, the CJEU noted that the Regulations made no such distinction, and held that it should not be relevant for determining the scope, and effect, of the freezing of funds and resources.

The judgment is essentially an exercise of construction of the relevant regulations. Given the very broad language used by the European lawmaker, such exercise was bound to result in an inclusion of the relevant measures in the forbidden uses of the funds. The court does not conduct any purposive interpretation.

While conservative measures grant in rem rights under French, they do not under the law of other Member States. The CJEU responded to the question as framed, but it insisted that the issue was the change of ‘destination’. It seems, therefore, that conservative measures should be considered as falling within the scope of the freezing of funds irrespective of whether they grant in rem rights or not.

In October 2021, the Spanish Supreme Court had the opportunity to show its willingness to follow the Court of Justice and to give an example of a good practice in a matter related to the application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The order (auto) of 7 October 2021, was delivered by the Plenary of the Civil Chamber, with M. Ignacio Sancho Gargallo as reporting judge, against the background of an action for damages suffered as a result of an infringement of competition law.

In the case at hand, the Spanish company Garutrans Gasteiz S.L. filed a claim against Paccar Inc. and its subsidiary DAF Trucks NV, domiciled, according to the lawsuit, in San Fernando de Henares (Spain). The case was assigned to the Commercial Court No. 3 of Madrid, which declared the application admissible. After the attempts to serve the process at the address indicated in the claim failed, the plaintiff indicated two new addresses, one in the United States and another in the Netherlands.

The Madrid court, by order of 18 January 2021, declared ex officio its lack of territorial jurisdiction and pointed to the commercial courts of Vitoria as competent, arguing the defendants have their registered office outside of Spain and the DAF trucks were acquired in Vitoria, where the plaintiff is domiciled.

By order of 12 April 2021, however, the Commercial Court No. 1 of Vitoria declared itself incompetent as well on the basis that three of the four trucks had been acquired in Navarra. The situation was therefore one of a negative conflict of jurisdiction.

The Supreme Court ruled that the Madrid court’s declaration of incompetence was premature, since according to Article 28, para. 1, of the Brussels I bis Regulation it should have summoned the defendants (NoA: the Regulation imposes such duty only in relation to defendants domiciled in a Member State other than the one where the judge seats; nothing is said about other defendants), so as to give them the possibility of appearing and accepting jurisdiction in accordance with Article 26 of the Regulation, or rejecting it through the procedural tool to the purpose. Only after, and only provided the defendant(s) does not appear, the court seised is entitled to analyse its jurisdiction and to declare ex officio it has none.

What is interesting about the order of the Supreme Court, however, is not the final conclusion, but the Court’s statements showing its awareness and disposition to follow the Court of Justice’s decision C 30/20, Volvo, in order to identify the place of the damage in the framework of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The Volvo ruling corresponds to a request from a Madrid Court. There, the Court of Justice explicitly asserts that Article 7(2) of the Regulation determines both international and territorial jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court recalls that the centralisation of jurisdiction before a single specialised court may be justified in the interests of the sound administration of justice: as AG Richard de la Tour had suggested in his opinion, the technical complexity of the rules applicable to actions for damages for infringements of competition law provisions may militate in favour of such a centralisation of jurisdiction. In its absence, the courts of the place where the goods were acquired are territorially competent. This notwithstanding, should the buyer not have purchased the goods affected by the collusive arrangements in question within the jurisdiction of a single court, territorial jurisdiction is conferred on the courts of the place where the undertaking harmed has its registered office.

As already said, the Spanish Supreme Court did not need to apply the above-mentioned solutions to the case at hand, but profited from the occasion to endorse them and to explicitly revoke its previous understanding of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

The University of Toulouse (France) will host a conference on Notary’s Role in Private International Law (L’office du notaire en droit international privé) organised by Estelle Gallant, on 25-26 November 2021.

The conference will include sessions on the role of notary as competent authority in the field of private international law, the reception and circulation of public documents, the drawing up of deeds by notaries as well as roundtables on divorce by mutual consent, property regime of couples and international successions.

Speakers will include numerous PIL specialists:

• Scholars : Hugues Kenkack (Toulouse), Fabienne Jault-Seseke (Paris-Saclay), Patrick Wautelet (Liège), Pierre Callé (Paris-Saclay), Christine Bidaud (Lyon 3), Hugues Fulchiron (Lyon 3), Eric Fongaro (Bordeaux), Michel Farge (Grenoble-Alpes), Hélène Péroz (Nantes), Nathalie Joubert (Bourgogne-Dijon), Sara Godechot-Patris (Paris-Est Créteil), Sandrine Clavel (Paris-Saclay), Marc Nicod (Toulouse), Lukas Rass-Masson (Toulouse), Estelle Gallant (Toulouse) & Cyril Nourissat (Lyon 3)
• Notaries: Caroline Deneuville (Paris), Richard Crône (Paris) and François Tremosa (Toulouse) & Jean-Christophe Rega (Mission Europe du CSN),
• Legal practionners working with notaries : Mariel Revillard, Marion Nadaud (Bordeaux) & Sophie Chalas-Kudelko (Lyon)

The full programme is available here. Online registration is open here.

It is common practice for children to be registered in the country where they are born or where they hold nationality. But what if these countries fail to do so? A judgment of 18 October 2021 rendered by a judge of first instance in Montilla (Spain) gives an answer, which was reported in the blog run by José Carlos Fernández Rozas and on the webpage of the Consejo General del Poder Judicial. The judgment can still be appealed.

A child was born in March 2020 in Oran (Algeria) to a national of Cameron; the father is unknown. The Algerian authorities failed to register the child. One year later, mother and child entered Spanish territory, where they have been living since in a refugee centre in Montilla.

The judge decided that the child should be registered in the Spanish civil register, despite the absence of a previous registration in the country of its birth or nationality.

The Spanish judge stressed that competence for registering the child’s birth lay first and foremost with Algeria, the place of its birth, and with Cameron, the country of its nationality. Since these countries failed to exercise their competence, the judge found that Spain had both the right and the duty to register the child. The legal basis for doing so would be Article 9(2) of the Spanish Act on the Civil Register (Ley 20/2011, de 21 de julio, del Registro Civil), which provides that events and acts that have taken place outside Spain shall be registered in the Spanish register when required by Spanish law.

Most interesting is where the judge found the requirement to register the event of the child’s birth. In this regard, he referred to the highest-ranking legal sources available. In particular, he cited the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the various rights it grants to the individual. The judge used these sources to formulate some very far-reaching and important legal propositions. He emphasised that the registration of a person’s identity is “one of the most essential manifestations of the recognition of the individual as such”. It would be “the only form by which society and the law accept its existence”, and it would “facilitate the exercise of all of the rights that the law bestows from the time of birth”. Without an entry in the civil register, there would be no liberty to respect, and no right to recognise.

On a more technical level, the judge referred to Article 6 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which says that “Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law”. He also referred to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which had been signed and ratified by Spain, Article 7(1) of which sets out that “[t]he child shall be registered immediately after birth …”.

The judge considered Article 7(1) of the Convention to be of direct and immediate effect because of its clear, precise and unconditional formulation. This was despite Article 7(2) of the Convention, under which the states party to the Convention shall implement the obligation to register, “in particular where the child would otherwise be stateless”. The judge argued that Article 7(2) was mainly focused on avoiding situations of statelessness, and that the registration was a condition prior to the granting of nationality because only persons recognised as having legal personality could be considered as nationals. In other words, the child had to be registered somewhere before nationality could be granted. Article 7(1) of the Convention would thus contain a binding obligation for Spanish tribunals to this effect.

The judge cited various other provisions, especially of the Spanish Constitution. Inter alia, Article 39(4) of the Constitution provides that “Children shall enjoy the protection provided for in the international agreements which safeguard their rights”.  He also referred to Article 96(1) of the Constitution, according to which validly concluded international treaties, once officially published in Spain, shall form part of the internal legal order.

The judgment requires the registration of children by local authorities where a child has been born abroad but not registered there. This is a significant principle that should also be followed by other nations. As a legal basis, they could use either the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child or, if they have not signed it, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which applies as customary international law.

Nevertheless, the judgment should not be overinterpreted. Even where a child has not been registered, it is entitled the plenitude of human rights, which exist from birth and are not preconditioned on registration. However, without being officially registered, the child (and also its mother) will encounter many difficulties in practical life. This is why registration is so important that it may be considered even as a human right that can be invoked everywhere.

— Special thanks to José Carlos Fernandez Rozas for his contribution to this post.