EAPIL blog

In the last decades, Spanish academia has seen a growing number of journals devoted, exclusively or not, to PIL issues. The editorial principles of them all have also quickly evolved and may are open access and downloadable from the very moment of publication, or only some months afterwards. Most of them follow a strict double-blind peer-review, almost all provide for a summary of the contributions in English, and some accept to publish in languages other than Spanish.

Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, of the University Carlos III of Madrid, has already a place in the EAPIL blog. In this and following entries I will present other relevant current Spanish PIL journals, starting with those belonging to the Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales (AEPDIRI): the Spanish Yearbook of International Law (SYbIL), the Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales (REEI) and the Revista Española de Derecho Internacional (REDI).

The SYbIL, founded in 1991, provides an annual report on new developments in international law. From 1991 to 2012 (vols. 1-17), the Yearbook was published by Martinus Nijhoff/Brill. From vol. 18 onwards, the Editor decided to go entirely on-line under a complete open-access philosophy. The contents of volumes 1-17 in PDF format have been kindly made freely accessible by Brill to all readers, thus all them can be freely downloaded too.

Since its first volume, the Yearbook has endeavoured to make a significant academic contribution to the on-going development of international law, with a particular focus on Spanish doctrine and practice. The SYbIL is the only publication edited by AEPDIRI completely written in English in order to reach the largest possible international audience. Its rules of governance have been adopted by AEPDIRI (a résumé may be found here, in Spanish).

In 2013, with the election of a new Editorial Board, a new editorial plan was adopted and the SYbIL changed its purpose, structure and editorial model. This new website tries to offer the contents of this new epoch of the Yearbook. This editorial decision will enable the Yearbook to be accessible to the entire international readership, offering current research in Spanish academic institutions but other research of what Oscar Schachter labelled as the “invisible college of international law” as well.

Fully aware of the paramount importance of international practice, the Spanish Yearbook publishes contributions from active practitioners of international law on a regular basis. The Yearbook also includes critical comments on Spanish State practice relating to international and EU law, as well as international reactions to that practice.

The last issue of the SYbIL can be access here. The next one will be published in January 2022. Contributions for each forthcoming issue need to be sent by July 31 of the previous year at the latest to editor@sybil.es following the editorial guidelines.

Volume 415 of the Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law published with Brill is dedicated to Mr. Trooboff’s Hague Academy general course lectures on ‘Globalization, Personal Jurisdiction and the Internet’.

The author reviews how courts in the United States, the European Union and a number of countries such as Canada, Japan, India and Latin America have responded to the challenge of adapting settled principles and precedents to cases arising from Internet usage. Trooboff examines the recent U.S. Supreme Court cases addressing general and specific personal jurisdiction and how U.S. appellate courts have applied the Court’s holdings in disputes arising out of the use of the Internet in Chapter 2. Eleven decisions of the European Union Court of Justice and related scholarship that interpret the jurisdictional provisions of Brussels I Regulation and its successor in the context of Internet usage and that arise from tort and contract claims (including infringement of intellectual property and related rights) are discussed in Chapter 3. Similarly selected decisions and scholarship addressing analogous personal jurisdiction issues in decisions of courts of Canada, Japan, China, Latin America and India are analysed in Chapter 4. The last part of the volume – Chapter 5 – is dedicated to an overview of the important projects that incorporate the principles emerging from the many judicial decisions and that have been undertaken by Hague Conference on Private International Law, the American Law Institute, the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property, the International Law Association and the International Law Institute.

Further details about the volume are available here.

 

A new version of the Insolvency Registers Interconnection search interface is now available on the e-Justice Portal.

Background

The EU-wide interconnection of national insolvency registers (IRI 2.0) has been developed in accordance with article 25 of the Regulation (EU) 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings across EU borders. EU Member States are required to publish relevant information on cross-border insolvency cases in a publicly accessible online register (see here) and these registers shall be interconnected via the European e-Justice Portal.

The decentralised system allows searches for insolvent debtors, either natural or legal persons, within the EU Member States registers that completed the implementation according to the Insolvency Regulation. It aims at ensuring that creditors and national courts receive relevant information and at preventing parallel proceedings to be opened within the EU.

New Version

Since 1 September 2021, the new system has replaced the current version based on voluntary participation under the insolvency Registers Interconnection search (IRI 1.0) and applicable in the following Member States: Austria, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Italy, Latvia, the Netherlands, Slovenia and Romania (see here).

The new system applies (for now) in the following Member States: Belgium, Estonia, Spain, Croatia, Cyprus, Latvia, Lithuania, The Netherlands, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Finland, Sweden and Germany (see here).

More information here.

Ghent University (Belgium) and its Center for the Future of Dispute Resolution organise an online conference titled Transnational Dispute Resolution in an Increasingly Digitalized World, to be held on 24 March 2022.

A call for abstracts is open through 1 December 2021.

The concept is as follows:

The increased digitalization in the field dispute resolution, which received a boost from the Covid-19 pandemic, raises a number of important questions in terms of privacy, cybersecurity, data protection and artificial intelligence, going from rather practical concerns (how to protect the information exchanged, how to organize the taking of evidence, how to comply with the various obligations, etc.) to more fundamental inquiries (does it scare litigants off, does it foster or rather compromise efficiency, etc.).

The goal of the conference is to bring together academics, practitioners and policy makers with expertise in the field of dispute resolution (arbitration, transnational litigation, mediation, other ADR mechanisms) and technology law. That is why we are particularly (but not exclusively) interested in contributions that focus on :

• Obligations of the actors of justice
• Challenges and opportunities of (partial) online proceedings
• Evidentiary issues related to cybersecurity and data protection
• The (ab)use of these instruments as a dispute resolution strategy

and discuss these forward-looking dispute resolution topics in light of the various privacy, data protection, cybersecurity and AI regulations.

See here for more information.

The most recent issue of the Uniform Law Review contains a number of articles that are interesting from a PIL perspective.

The first, authored by Michiel Poesen, has the provocative title Is specific jurisdiction dead and did we murder it? An appraisal of the Brussels Ia Regulation in the globalizing context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention (abstract here). It is basically a critique of the rigid application of Art 7 Brussels I bis Regulation by the CJEU. The author claims that the Hague Judgments Convention would not follow this approach but rather require a more flexible assessment of jurisdiction through its jurisdictional filters. He points in this context to Art 5(1)(g) Hague Judgments Convention, which makes indirect jurisdiction for contractual claims dependent on the caveat that “activities of the defendant in relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State”. This formula is indeed clearly inspired by the minimum contacts test under U.S. constitutional law. Still, in Art 5(1)(g) it is combined with a performance-of-the-obligation test, which is strongly reminiscent of Art 7(1) Brussels I bis. Rather than “murdering” special jurisdiction, the Hague Convention thus provides for a compromise of the EU and U.S. approaches, with the former defining the core and the latter the outer limit of contractual jurisdiction.

The second article, written by Garth J Bouwers, is titled Tacit choice of law in international commercial contracts: an analysis of Asian jurisdictions and the Asian Principles of Private International Law (abstract here). He points to an interesting Chinese practice direction which assumes a tacit choice of the lex fori where none of the parties has pleaded foreign law. This reminds of the approach under French law (for recent case-law and analysis see here and here). In the analysis of the other jurisdictions examined (Hong Kong, Japan, South Korea, Singapore), this possibility is not mentioned. It seems that the latter rather rely on an ex officio application of foreign law. The author thankfully describes their methods in detail.

Third, Johanna Hoekstra examines the Political barriers to the ratification of international commercial law conventions (free access to full article here). She takes the Swiss proposal to reform the CISG as an example of the obstacles that legal uniformisation may encounter. To this end, she relies on insights from political science, which she applies to the specific context of legal harmonisation. Her conclusion that “international private law can have low political priority” is sad but probably true. Equally important is her observation that lobbying and interest groups may change this setting.

There are also three articles written in French, one on the liability of an arbitrator for the damages caused by preliminary measures (abstract here), and two on legal harmonisation in West Africa under the auspices of OHADA (here and here).

A further article by the author of the present post is entitled National Blockchain Laws as a Threat to Capital Markets Integration (full free access here). It compares recent private law reforms concerning digital assets in France, Liechtenstein, the UK, the US (U.C.C.) and the (deviating) law of Wyoming. The comparison also encompasses the conflict-of-laws rules for the blockchain in these systems.

Of special interest is a presentation of the new Uruguay Act on PIL (Ley general de derecho internacional privado) (abstract here). The Act allows the choice of non-state law to the extent that it is generally recognised on the international level, neutral and balanced, and emanates from an international organisation to which Uruguay is a member (Article 45). Also of interest is the special place the Act gives to international commercial law (Article 13), which is reminiscent, but not identical to, old musings about the existence of a “lex mercatoria“.

Finally, this rich treasure of PIL insights also informs about new developments in the law of secured transactions in China (abstract here) and UNCITRAL’s 53d Commission session (abstract here).

Routledge published a new book by Johanna Hoekstra (lecturer in Law at the University of Essex, UK) on non-state rules entitled Non-State Rules in International Commercial Law. Contracts, Legal Authority and Application.

The blurb reads as follows:

Through further technological development and increased globalization, conducting business abroad has become easier, especially for Small and Medium Enterprises (SME). However, the legal issues associated with international commerce have not lessened in complexity, including the role of non-state rules.

The book provides a comprehensive analysis of non-state rules in international commercial contracts. Non-state rules have legal authority in the national and international sphere, but the key question is how this legal authority can be understood and established. To answer this question this book examines first what non-state rules are and how their legal authority can be measured, it then analyses how non-state rules are applied in different scenarios, including as the applicable law, as a source of law, or to interpret either the law or the contract. Throughout this analysis three other important questions are also answered: when can non-state rules be applied? when are they applied? and how are they applied? The book concludes with a framework and classification that leads to a deeper understanding of the legal authority of non-state rules.

Providing a transnational perspective on this important topic, this book will appeal to anyone researching international commercial law. It will also be a valuable resource for arbitrators and anyone working in international commercial litigation.

The book begins by giving an overview of non-state rules in international commercial contracts before focusing on the nature of non-state rules and how to assess their legal authority in Part 1. Part 2 analysis the application of non-state rules as governing law of a Contract. This part looks into the principle of party autonomy in international commercial contracts, and the interplay between non-state rules and Private International Law, and arbitration. The last part, Part 3, is dedicated to the application of the non-state rules by courts. The analysis covers various aspects ranging from the influence of non-state rules as sources of domestic law and interpretation of the law to lex mercatoria and ascertaining the legal authority of this type of rules.

On October 6th, 2021, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its ruling in Skarb Państwa Rzeczypospolitej Polskiej reprezentowany przez Generalnego Dyrektora Dróg Krajowych i Autostrad v. TOTO SpA – Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori SpA (Case C‑581/20). The decision is currently only available in French and Bulgarian.

Although three questions were referred for a preliminary ruling, the Court asked the Advocate-General to focus only on one of them, which was concerned with parallel interim litigation under the Brussels Ibis Regulation. This post will also focus on this issue (for the answer of the Court to the other questions, see the post of  Krzysztof Pacula over at Conflictoflaws.net).

Background

In 2015, in order to guarantee obligations assumed under a public contract concluded in Poland for the construction of a section of expressway, the undertakings which had been awarded the contract provided to the Polish contracting authority a number of guarantees underwritten by a Bulgarian insurer.

Some years later, the contractors unsuccessfully applied to a Polish court for provisional, including protective, measures prohibiting the contracting authority from making use of those guarantees. The contractors made a similar application to the Bulgarian courts, which dismissed the application at first instance and granted it on appeal.

The Polish contracting authority appealed to the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation, Bulgaria) which referred three questions to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Jurisdiction of the Polish and Bulgarian Courts under the Regulation

The most interesting issue in the case arose out of the fact that the contractors had applied for protective measures in two Member States: Poland, then Bulgaria.

The relevant contract included a jurisdiction clause granting jurisdiction to Polish courts. Polish courts had thus jurisdiction on the merits. As a consequence, they had unlimited jurisdiction to grant any kind of protective measure available under Polish law.

In contrast, Bulgarian courts did not have jurisdiction on the merits. Their jurisdiction to grant provisional, including protective measures, could only be founded in Article 35 of the Brussels I Regulation, and was limited in a number of ways which will be familiar to the readers of this blog. It could be argued that their jurisdiction in this case was justified because the subject matter of the interim measure was the debt of a Bulgarian legal person.

How were then the Polish proceedings and decision to influence the power of Bulgarian courts to grant the interim measures applied for?

Proceedings or Decisions?

To answer this question, an important conceptual distinction was in order.

There are two different rules in the Brussels Ibis Regulation which address parallel litigation.

The first is lis pendens. If the same proceedings are brought in two different courts, the lis pendens doctrine requires that the court seised second decline jurisdiction. The rule, therefore, strips the court seised second from its jurisdiction.

The second is the recognition of foreign decisions. If recognised, foreign decisions are res judicata. They prevent relitigation of the claims. They have no impact on the jurisdiction of the forum. Res judicata makes the claims inadmissible.

So what was this case concerned with? Interim proceedings had been initiated first in Poland, and they had resulted in decisions. From the perspective of Bulgaria, was the issue the jurisdiction of Bulgarian courts, or the admissibility of claims which had been decided by Polish courts?

Unclear Question, Unclear Answer?

The Bulgarian court had formulated its question as follows:

After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of [Regulation No 1215/12] to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?

Was the question concerned with the jurisdiction of Bulgarian courts?

Of course, the CJEU reformulated the question, as it always does. It is unclear whether this is always necessary to do so, but in this case, it would have been good to clarify what the case, or at least the judgment of the CJEU, was about.

Unfortunately, the CJEU did not clarify anything.

It reformulated the question by asking whether an Art 35 court was under the obligation to decline jurisdiction if the foreign court had already decided the same dispute.

It held that there is no hierachy between the two jurisdictional grounds for issuing provisional measures, Art. 35 and jurisdiction on the merits.

It thus concluded that an Art 35 court was under no obligation to decline jurisdiction if the foreign court had already decided the same dispute. It ruled:

L’article 35 du règlement no 1215/2012 doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une juridiction d’un État membre saisie d’une demande de mesures provisoires ou conservatoires au titre de cette disposition n’est pas tenue de se déclarer incompétente lorsque la juridiction d’un autre État membre, compétente pour connaître du fond, a déjà statué sur une demande ayant le même objet et la même cause et formée entre les mêmes parties.

Advocate-General Rantos had done a much better job. In his conclusions, he had distinguished between two hypotheticals: the foreign provisional measure could be recognised, or it could not. He had explained that he had to distinguish, because he could not assess in the present case whether the foreign provisional measure could be recognised.

Conclusion

What is the contribution of the answer of the Court to this question?

I am not sure.

This post was contributed by Thomas Mastrullo, who is an Associate Professor at the University of Luxembourg.

In a judgment of 3 March 2021, the French Court of Cassation allowed an appeal against the judgment of a court of appeal which had refused to declare the enforceability in France of a foreign decision rendered in insolvency proceedings by simply invoking a previous decision of the foreign court without analysing its content, nor finding that it was irreconcilable with the decision the enforcement of which was sought in France.

Decisions of the Court of Cassation on the enforcement of foreign decisions in insolvency proceedings are not frequent, which makes this decision interesting.

Background

In this case, the insolvency practitioner of insolvency proceedings opened in Germany had requested that a decision of the bankruptcy court of Ansbach – ordering the payment of a certain sum of money to the former manager of the debtor company – be declared enforceable in France. The application for enforceability was accepted by a declaration of the registrar, but rejected by the Court of Appeal. The insolvency practitioner appealed to the Court of Cassation. In particular, he criticised the Court of Appeal for refusing to declare the enforceability by simply referring – without any analysis – to an earlier decision of the Ansbsach District Court.

Irreconcilability of Decisions under the Brussels I Regulation

It is true that the enforcement of a decision can sometimes be excluded because of the existence of an earlier decision. But some conditions must be fulfilled.

For the enforcement of judgments, Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings refers to Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Regl. No 1346/2000, Art. 25. – Regulation No 1346/2000 actually refers to the Brussels Convention, the provisions of which are reproduced identically in Regulation (EC) No 44/2001). And Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 provides that a judgment shall not be recognised – and thus shall not be enforceable – only if “it is irreconcilable with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State involving the same cause of action and between the same parties, provided that the earlier judgment fulfils the conditions necessary for its recognition in the Member State addressed”. As a consequence, a national judge cannot refuse to recognise and enforce a judgment merely by noting the existence of an earlier judgment: such a refusal demands that the earlier judgment was given “between the same parties” in a dispute “involving the same cause of action” as the judgment for which recognition is sought, that it is able of being recognised in the Member State concerned and that the two judgments are irreconcilable.

Therefore, by merely referring to the judgment of the Ansbach District Court, the Court of Appeal “deprived its judgment of a legal basis”, i.e. did not examine fully whether the requirements of the applicable provision were fulfilled. As the Court of Cassation states, under Article 25 of Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 and Article 34(4) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001, the Court of Appeal could not simply refer to the earlier decision without “analysing” its content or “establishing its irreconcilability” with the decision the enforceability of which was sought in France.

Even if it seems self-evident, this reminder of the national judge’s role in the recognition and enforcement of decisions related to insolvency proceedings is welcome.

In any case, one can wonder if the existence of an earlier irreconcilable judgment from the same Member State as the judgment the recognition and enforceability of which is sought, as in the present case, is effectively able to prevent such recognition. Indeed, in the Salzgitter judgment of 26 September 2013, the Court of Justice ruled that Article 34 (4) of the Brussels I Regulation doesn’t cover irreconcilable judgments given by courts of the same Member State.

On 4 October 2021, the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council held in Convoy Collateral Ltd (Appellant) v Broad Idea (Respondent) (British Virgin Islands) that the House of Lords’ decision in Siskina (Owners of cargo lately laden on board) v Distos Cia Naviera SA [1979] AC 210 (“The Siskina”) and the Privy Council decision in Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 were wrongly decided.

The first few sentences of Lord Leggatt in Convoy say it all:

1. In his dissenting judgment in Mercedes Benz AG v Leiduck [1996] AC 284 at p 314D, Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead said:

“The law took a wrong turning in The Siskina, and the sooner it returns to the proper path the better.”

The Siskina

In The Siskina, the House of Lords held that English courts have no power to grant freezing orders (Mareva injunctions, at the time) unless it is ancillary to a cause of action, in the sense of a claim for final, substantive relief which the court has jurisdiction to grant.

In other words, English courts, and courts of common law jurisdictions following the English common law, would only grant freezing injunctions if they had jurisdiction on the merits.

In contrast, the mere presence of assets within the jurisdiction was not an autonomous ground for granting freezing injunctions. Despite scholarly opinions to the contrary, such as the comments of Lord Collins in a case note in the Law Quarterly Review:

“Common sense would suggest that if proceedings are pending in one country, and the defendant’s assets are situate in another country, the plaintiff ought to be able to obtain protective or interim relief by way of attachment in the latter country. That is indeed the law in most countries …” L. Collins, “The Siskina again: an opportunity missed” (1996) 112 LQR 8

Convoy

Broad Idea is a company incorporated in the BVI. Dr. Cho is a shareholder and director of Broad Idea. In February 2018, Convoy applied to the BVI court for freezing orders against Broad Idea and Dr. Cho in support of anticipated proceedings against Dr Cho in Hong Kong. Convoy also sought permission to serve Dr. Cho out of the jurisdiction. Following a hearing held without notice to Broad Idea and Dr. Cho, the BVI court granted freezing orders restraining them from disposing of or diminishing the value of certain of their respective assets and gave permission to serve Dr. Cho out of the jurisdiction. Convoy commenced proceedings against Dr. Cho (but not Broad Idea) in Hong Kong shortly thereafter. The freezing orders issued against Dr. Cho by the BVI court and the order granting permission to serve Dr Cho out of the jurisdiction were subsequently set aside in April 2019 on the basis that the court did not have jurisdiction to make them. In the meantime, Convoy had made a further application for a freezing order against Broad Idea in support of the Hong Kong proceedings against Dr. Cho.

In July 2019, the judge continued the freezing order against Broad Idea indefinitely on the basis that the principle enunciated in TSB Private Bank International SA v Chabra [1992] 2 All ER 245 applied in the circumstances and that Broad Idea’s assets were at risk of dissipation. Broad Idea’s appeal against the judge’s decision was allowed by the Court of Appeal. Convoy then appealed to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Coucil.

The issues were:

(i) whether the BVI court has jurisdiction and/or power to grant a freezing order where the respondent is a person against whom no cause of action has arisen, and against whom no substantive proceedings are pursued, in the BVI or elsewhere, and if so
(ii) whether any such jurisdiction and/or power extends to the granting of a freezing order in support of proceedings to which that person is not a party.

Lord Leggatt concluded for the majority:

It is necessary to dispel the residual uncertainty emanating from The Siskina and to make it clear that the constraints on the power, and the exercise of the power, to grant freezing and other interim injunctions which were articulated in that case are not merely undesirable in modern day international commerce but legally unsound. The shades of The Siskina have haunted this area of the law for far too long and they should now finally be laid to rest.

Sir Goeffrey Vos wrote a minority opinion.

A Civil Law Perspective

Many lawyers from the civil law tradition found the Siskina quite remarkable. This is because, in most civil law jurisdictions, the proposition that protective measures could produce any extraterritorial effect has always been highly controversial. So, the idea that any other court than the court of the place where the assets might be situated could have jurisdiction to order, or supervise, their freezing, bordered the unthinkable.

True, protective measures in the civil law tradition are typically provisional attachments, which act in rem, while interim injunctions are equitable remedies which act in personam. But I would argue that this is a quite formalistic distinction. There is no fundamental reason why an in rem remedy could not reach assets situated abroad, and be enforced there.

If that is correct, then the issue is how to define the (extra) territorial reach of freezing injunctions/attachements. Jurisdiction on the merits is certainly a very reasonable one.

But, clearly, the location of the assets does also appear as a very reasonable ground for granting jurisdiction to freeze/attach them, if only for efficiency purposes (speed, in particular).

Only one judgment on PIL matters, namely the one in C-581/20, TOTO (first chamber: judges Bonichot, Bay Larsen, Safjan, Jääskinen and Toader, the latter as reporting judge) is scheduled so far for publication in October 2021. It will happen next Wednesday. In addition, two opinions are expected towards the end of the month.

Case C-581/20

The Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) referred the following questions to the Court of Justice:

1) Is Article 1 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that a case such as that described in this order for reference must be regarded in whole or in part as a civil or commercial matter within the meaning of Article 1(1) of that regulation?

2) After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?

3) If it follows from the answers to the first two questions referred that the court seised of an application under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] has jurisdiction, must the conditions for the ordering of protective measures under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted independently? Should a provision which does not allow a protective measure to be ordered against a public body in a case such as the present one be disapplied?

In the case at hand, the State Treasury – Director-General for National Roads, Poland – commissioned the Italian companies Toto S.p.A Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori S.p.A. to construct the S-5 expressway. Pursuant to clause 20.6 of the contract, the parties agreed on the jurisdiction of the Polish courts. Under the contract, guarantees were provided to ensure the fulfilment of the obligations. Furthermore, another guarantee was issued by an insurance company (ZD ‘Euroins’ AD) to secure payment of a contractual penalty in case of failure to complete the construction works in time.

Toto S.p.A Costruzioni Generali and Vianini Lavori S.p.A. brought actions in Poland against the State Treasury, seeking a declaration that the defendant is not entitled to demand payment of the contractual penalty agreed in the contract, since the conditions for such payment are not met. The Italian companies requested as well an interim measure obliging the defendant to refrain, in particular, from making use of guarantee provided by ZD ‘Euroins’ AD.

The Polish court considered the applications for an interim measure unfounded. The companies applied then to the Sofia City Court for an interim measure in connection with the actions brought before the District Court of Warsaw. The Sofia City Court rejected that application. The Sofia Court of Appeal reversed the decision and issued an attachment order against the receivable of the Ministry of Finance, Director-General for National Roads and Motorways, Poland, arising from the guarantees above mentioned.

The State Treasury of Poland appealed against the Supreme Court of Cassation (Bulgaria), which is the referring court in the main proceedings.

AG Rantos was asked to provide an opinion on the second question. It was published the 9th of September and can be consulted here – no English translation so far.

Case C-421/20

AG Szpunar’s opinion in C-421/20, Acacia, is due on 28 October. The request comes from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court Düsseldorf, Germany). It focuses on the interpretation (application?) of Article 82(5) of Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (CDR), whereby “Proceedings in respect of the actions and claims referred to in Article 81(a) and (d) may also be brought in the courts of the Member State in which the act of infringement has been committed or threatened.”

According to Article 81(a) and (d), “The Community design courts shall have exclusive jurisdiction: (a) for infringement actions and – if they are permitted under national law – actions in respect of threatened infringement of Community designs; … (d) for counterclaims for a declaration of invalidity of a Community design raised in connection with actions under (a)”.

The questions referred read as follows

1) In proceedings for an infringement of Community designs, can the national court dealing with the infringement proceedings having international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 82(5) of the CDR apply the national law of the Member State in which the court dealing with the infringement proceedings is situated (lex fori) to subsequent claims in relation to the territory of its Member State?

2) If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C 24/16, C 25/16 (Nintendo v BigBen) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of [the Rome II Regulation] also lie in the Member State where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the CDR, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State?

The case concerns a car manufacturer (the claimant in the main proceedings), who is, inter alia, the registered holder of Community design No 001598277-0002 (‘the Registered Design’). The defendant, an Italian company, manufactures rims for motor vehicles in Italy and sells them throughout the European Union. In Germany, it markets rims under the name ‘WSP Italy’, including the ‘Neptune GT’ model. The claimant considers that the distribution of the rims in Germany by the defendant constitutes an infringement of its Registered Design, whereas the defendant invokes the repair clause in Article 110 of the Council Regulation on Community Designs.

The Landgericht (Regional Court) ordered the defendant – geographically limited to the Federal Republic of Germany – to cease and desist, to provide information, to return documents and to surrender items for the purpose of destruction, and established the defendant’s obligation to pay damages. It based its international jurisdiction on Article 82(5) of the Community Design Regulation, assumed that the defendant had infringed the Registered Design, and applied German law to the subsequent claims asserted (damages, information, rendering of accounts, return of documents and surrender of items for the purpose of destruction) in accordance with Article 8(2) of the Rome II Regulation.

The defendant brought an appeal against that judgment. It continues to rely in particular on Article 110 of the CDR. In addition, it takes the view that under Article 8(2) of the Rome II Regulation Italian law is applicable to the subsequent claims asserted by the claimant

The case has been assigned to the fifth chamber (judges Regan, Lenaerts, Ilešič, Jarukaitis, Lycourgos, the latter as judge-rapporteur).

Case C-498/20

The opinion of AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona on C-498/20, BMA Nederland, is expected on the same day. The questions referred concern jurisdiction in tort matters in relation to a Peeters-Gatzen action, with an association defending collective interests intervening. The sixth chamber (Bay Larsen, Jääskinen and Safjan as reporting judge) will adjudicate.

The University of Strasbourg will host a conference on Mutual Trust in the Area of Justice, Freedom and Security (La confiance mutuelle dans l’Espace de liberté, de sécurité et de justice : crise(s) et perspectives) on 7-8 October 2021.

The conference will include sessions on European integration, the right to cross internal and external borders and cross border investments. It will also include several sessions more specifically dedicated to judicial cooperation, both with respect to Member States and Third States.

Speakers will include numerous PIL specialists, including some of the organisers of the conference (E. Farnoux, S. Fulli-Lemaire), and a number of external speakers (F. Marchadier, A. Marzal, E. Galland, J. Heymann, G.P. Romano, K. Parrot).

The full programme is available here. For registration, please write to jnyobe@unistra.fr.

Issue 5 of 2021 IPRax has been published recently. As usual, it contains a number of insightful articles and case comments. Here are the English abstracts.

Heiderhoff, International Product Liability 4.0

While the discussion on how liability for damages caused by autonomous systems, or “artificial intelligence”, should be integrated into the substantive law is well advanced, the private international law aspect has, so far, been neglected. In this contribution, it is shown that unilateral approaches – such as the EU Parliament has suggested (P9_TA-PROV(2020)0276) – are unnecessary and detrimental. It is preferable to develop a classical conflict of laws rule with connecting factors, which mirror the assessments of the substantive law. It is shown that a mere reinterpretation of the existing Article 5 Rome II Regulation might lead to legal insecurity, and that an addition of the provision is preferable. In particular, the notion of marketing, and its importance as a connecting factor, should be revised.

Vollmöller, The determination of the law applicable on claims for infringement of trade secrets in contractual relationships

The subject of the article is the determination of the applicable law in cross-border situations when a lawsuit is based on the violation of trade secrets within a contractual relationship. According to German Law, claims for infringement of trade secrets are regulated in the German Trade Secrets Act (Geschäftsgeheimnisgesetz – GeschGehG) that has implemented the European Directive 2016/943 on the protection of undisclosed know-how and business information (trade secrets) against their unlawful acquisition, use and disclosure. The focus is on the question how tort claims are connected if the contracting partners have agreed on confidentiality terms, in particular under a non-disclosure agreement. In case the agreement of the parties is ruled by the laws of a Non-European state, it is doubtful whether the harmonized European trade secret law is applicable. The author comes to the conclusion that a secondary connection to the jurisdiction governing the agreement according to Art. 4 Paragraph 3 Rome II Regulation should be limited to relationships where the parties have assumed further contractual obligations beyond confidentiality. In this case, the law applicable on the contract overrides the harmonized European trade secret law regulations which cannot be considered as mandatory rules either.

Lutzi, Ruth Bader Ginsburg – Internationalist by Conviction

In Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the Supreme Court has not only lost an icon of gender equality and towering figure, but also a great internationalist. Ginsburg’s jurisprudence was characterised by her own academic background as a proceduralist and comparativist, a decidedly international perspective, and a firm belief in a respectful and cooperative coexistence of legal systems. An English version of this text can be found at http://www.iprax.de/de/dokumente/online-veroeffentlichungen/

Kohler, Dismantling the “mosaic principle“: defining jurisdiction for violations of personality rights through the internet

In case C-194/16, Bolagsupplysningen, the ECJ ruled that, according to Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, a legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information on the internet and by a failure to remove comments relating to it can bring an action for rectification of that information, removal of those comments and compensation in respect of all the damage sustained before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located. On the other hand, an action for rectification of that information and removal of those comments cannot be brought before the courts of each Member State in which the information published on the internet is or was accessible. Thus, the ECJ’s decision in case C-509/09 and C-161/10, eDate Advertising a.o., also applies where the aggrieved party is a legal person. However, the “mosaic principle” defined in that judgment is inapplicable because an action for rectification and removal of information on the internet is “single and indivisible” and can, consequently, only be brought before a court with jurisdiction to rule on the entire damage. The author welcomes this limitation and advocates that the mosaic principle be given up entirely, particularly as it does not find resonance on the international level.

Mankowski, Consumer protection under the Brussels Ibis Regulation and company agreements

Company agreements pose a challenge to Articles 17–19 Brussels I bis Regulation; Articles 15–17 Lugano Convention 2007 since these rules are designed for bipolar contracts whereas the formers typically are multi-party contracts. This generates major problems, amongst them identifying the “other party” or answering how far a quest for equal treatment of shareholders might possibly carry. Arguments from the lack of a full-fledged forum societatis might weigh in, as do arguments from the realm of European private law or possible consequences for jurisdiction clauses in company statutes. The picture is threefold as to scenarios: founding and establishing a company; accession to an already established company; and derivative acquisition of a share in an already established company.

Wurmnest and Grandel, Enforcement of consumer protection rules by public authorities as a “civil and commercial matter“

In case C-73/19 (Belgische Staat ./. Movic) the European Court of Justice once again dealt with the delineation of “civil and commercial matters” (Art. 1(1) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation) when public authorities are involved. The Court correctly classified an action brought by Belgian authorities against Dutch companies seeking a declaration as to the unlawfulness of the defendants’ business practices (selling tickets for events at prices above their original price) and an injunction of these practices as a “civil and commercial matter”, as the position of the authorities was comparable to that of a consumer protection association. Furthermore, the Court clarified its case law on the thorny issue as to what extent evidence obtained by public authorities based on their powers may turn the litigation into a public law dispute. Finally, the judgment dealt with the classification of various ancillary measures requested by the Belgian authorities. Most notably, a request by the authorities to be granted the power to determine future violations of the law simply by means of a report “under oath” issued by an official of the authorities was not a “civil- and commercial matter” as private litigants could not be granted similar powers under Belgian law.

Wagner, Jurisdiction in a dispute with defendants in different member states of the European Union

The article discusses a court ruling of the Higher Regional Court of Hamm on jurisdiction concerning the “Diesel emission scandal”. The plaintiff had his domicile in Bielefeld (Germany). He bought a car in Cologne (Germany) where the seller had his domicile. Later on, the plaintiff brought an action for damages and for a declaratory judgment against the seller, the importer of the car (domicile: Darmstadt, Germany) and the producer of the car (domicile: in the Czech Republic) before the District Court of Bielefeld. The plaintiff argued that the producer of the car had used illegal software to manipulate the results of the emissions tests. He based his claim on tort. Against the first defendant he also claimed his warranty rights. In order to sue all three defendants in one trial the plaintiff requested the District Court of Bielefeld to ask the Higher Regional Court of Hamm to determine jurisdiction. In its decision the Court in Hamm took into account Article 8 No. 1 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and § 36 I No. 3, II of the German Code of Civil Procedure.

Wolber, Jurisdiction for an Application opposing Enforcement in cross-border Enforcement of a Maintenance Decision

The question, whether the maintenance debtor should be entitled to raise the objection that he has predominantly discharged his debt in the Member State of enforcement is highly relevant in practice and disputed in the scientific literature. The European Court of Justice (ECJ) has decided on this question – upon a request for a preliminary ruling by a German court – in the case FX ./. GZ with judgment of 4th June 2020. The ECJ confirms the jurisdiction of the German court based on Article 41 of Regulation No 4/2009. This judgment has effects beyond the enforcement of maintenance decisions on other instruments of European Law of Civil Procedure. While this judgment deserves approval in the result, the reasoning of the court is not convincing. The ECJ judgment does not cover the question of the territorial scope of such a judgment.

Schlosser, Clarification of the service of documents abroad

In extending the term “demnächst” (“soon”) the judgment of the Bundesgerichtshof ruled that a person interested in serving a document to somebody (in particular the initial claim) must only request the court to care for the translation and pay immediately thereafter the estimated costs of the translation for correctly initiating the litigation and thus meeting the term of limitation. The rest of time needed for the translation is irrelevant. The author is developing the impact of this decision for the three variants of serving a document to someone abroad in the European Union: (1) Serving the document spontaneously in time together with the translation, (2) Serving the document belated together with the translation after the court has asked whether the respective person wants a translation, (3) Serving initially without a translation but serving the document again together with a translation after the addressee has refused to accept service without any translation.

Dutta, European Certificate of Succession for administrators of insolvent estates?

German law provides for a special insolvency procedure for insolvent estates (Nachlassinsolvenzverfahren) which is subject to the European Insolvency Regulation. The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main came to the conclusion that nevertheless the liquidator of such an insolvency procedure can apply for a European Certificate of Succession under the Succession Regulation being an “administrator of the estate”. The case note argues that the German Nachlassinsolvenzverfahren falls within the scope of the Insolvency and the Succession Regulation (section II & III) and that issuing a Certificate causes only indirect frictions between both instruments which are not grave enough to invoke the conflict rule in Article 76 of the Succession Regulation (section IV). The case shows that the model of the Certificate could be extended to other areas (section V).

Jayme, The restitution of the “Welfenschatz“ before the U.S. Supreme Court

The US Supreme Court, in a case involving the restitution of the treasure of the Guelphs and the question of state immunity of the Federal Republic of Germany, decides that the FSIA’s exception concerning property taken in violation of the international law of expropriation does not refer to property owned by German nationals (“domestic takings rule”). The heirs of German Jewish Art dealers who had acquired a large part of the art treasure of the Guelphs from the Ducal family of Braunschweig asked for the restitution of such parts of the treasure which they had sold to Prussia in 1935 alleging that they had been unlawfully coerced to sell the pieces for a third of its value. The defendants were the Federal Republic of Germany and the Stiftung Preußischer Kulturbesitz. The plaintiffs argued inter alia that the forced purchase of the treasure had been an act of genocide in violation of international law and, therefore, justified an exception to State immunity. The District Court denied Germany’s motion to dismiss, and the D.C. Circuit Court affirmed. The Supreme Court held that the phrase “rights in property taken in violation of international law” refers to violations of the international law of expropriation and thereby incorporates the domestic takings rule. The case was remanded to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals for further proceedings which inter alia will concern the question whether the Jewish art dealers were German nationals at the time of the sale of the treasure (1935).

The new issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé (3/2021) is out. It contains 2 articles and numerous case notes.

The editorial by Horatia Muir Watt (Sciences Po), Dominique Bureau (University of Paris II) and Sabine Corneloup (University of Paris II) will soon be available in English on the Dalloz website (Éclectisme et gai savoir).

In the first article, David Sindres (Professor, University of Angers) analyses the control implemented by the judge responsible for the enforcement of pecuniary condemnations pronounced by foreign courts (Le contrôle par le juge de l’exequatur des condamnations pécuniaires prononcées par un juge étranger).

The control exercised by the enforcement judge over the amount of pecuniary condemnations pronounced by foreign courts, which was highlighted in France by the famous Fountaine Pajot decision, has different faces: as witnessed by recent decisions handed out by the French Cour de cassation on this matter, this control may concern the amount of damages, as in the Fountaine Pajot case, as well as the interests of a loan or the amount of a procedural indemnity granted by a foreign court. Although the reason for this control, which aims at ensuring the conformity of the foreign decision with the forum’s international substantive public policy, is clear, this clarity does not however extend, in recent case law, either to the exact perimeter of the control or to the criteria upon which it shall be based.

This article therefore seeks to instill clarity in this realm, by insisting especially on a double necessity: on the one hand, avoiding that this control degenerates in a review as to the substance of the foreign decision, and on the other hand, resorting to criteria specific to each hypothesis and reflecting essential principles of the lex fori on the issue at stake.

In the second article, Georgette Salamé (PhD Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne, Lecturer at Saint Joseph University, Beyrouth) and Guillaume Kessler (Associate Professor, University of Savoie) discuss French law on international relocation of children in the context of parental separation, in the light of comparative law models (Séparation parentale et déménagement international de l’enfant).

The increased mobility of individuals combined with the frequency of divorce/separation cases has made the relocation of children a recurrent issue both in France and abroad and one that often triggers litigation. French law does not provide for specific rules that are tailored to address this matter. Therefore, the courts have settled relocation disputes using the general rules that govern child custody. This paper considers French law in the light of comparative law models. Whilst all legal systems claim to achieve the child’s best interest, some have addressed relocation by setting a general presumption (in favor of or against the move) whereas others have opted for a case-by-case approach. French law comes within the second category, which appears to have been the preferred choice of many Western States.

Beyond underlining this general trend to favor a settlement sought in concreto, a comparative law analysis highlights the positive outcomes that certain more sophisticated mechanisms elected by foreign laws can achieve and suggests adjustments to the French relocation settlement mechanisms. It also emphasizes the increasing importance of the parent-child relationship in (re)defining the family and sheds light on mechanisms that can fine tune and improve its protection in the context of the child’s relocation.

On another note, the comparative law analysis calls for a reassessment of the legal means that purport to secure effective outcomes for relocation in the globalization era. The paper thus examines both preventive and deterrence policies as well as policies that rely on mediation to redefine the aftermath of separation. While French law is familiar with such approaches, comparative law suggests reshaping certain strategies by developing or eventually reconsidering their relevance in the context of the child’s international relocation.

 The full table of contents is available here.

A partial renewal of positions, both of AGs and of judges, will take place next October at the Court of Justice. The reasons vary from retirement to normal rotation (the latter being the case of the so-called “smaller countries” in as far as AGs are concerned).

As a consequence some opinions and judgments have been or will be delivered before scheduled. In PIL this will the case of C-296/20, Commerzbank, a request for a preliminary ruling from the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice, Germany) on the interpretation of Article 15 (1)(c) of the Lugano Convention 2007. The Opinion was delivered on September 9. AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona proposes that

‘Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed at Lugano on 30 October 2007, the conclusion of which was approved on behalf of the European Community by Council Decision 2009/430/EC of 27 November 2008, must be interpreted as meaning that it is not applicable in the case where, at the time when the contract is concluded, the parties to that contract are domiciled (within the meaning of Articles 59 and 60 of the Convention) in the same State bound by the Convention and the foreign component of the legal relationship arises only subsequently, when the consumer has transferred his or her domicile to another State also bound by the Convention.

In the alternative, Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention would be applicable in the case where the parties’ domicile at the time when the contract is concluded is situated in a single State bound by the Convention and the consumer subsequently relocates to another State also bound by the Convention, provided that the economic operator pursues in the State of the consumer’s new domicile a trade or profession such as that which gave rise to the conclusion of the contract.’

Should one or the other strands of the Opinion be followed, the Court would be taking a stance in favor of predictability both for the consumer and the other party to the contract, in line with C-585/08 and C-144/09 (Pammer and  Hotel Alpenhof). The contrary view will be more comfortable for the consumer, but deterrent for potential contractual parties (I would add: as things stand. Business counter-party will certainly try to develop strategies to reduce the impact of a consumer moving cross-border. A easy one: indiscriminate increase of the price of goods and services).

Our colleague Geer Van Calster provides a short accurate summary of the Opinion’s reasoning here, based on the provisional English translation. I would like to complete it by highlighting the following points:

First of all, according to the Opinion the ratio legis of Section 4 of Title II of the Convention is  to ensure adequate protection for the consumer against a very specific risk, namely that of internationality. Indeed, a process abroad entails costs and challenges an average consumer will not not willing or able to assume.

Secondly, consumer protection in the field of international jurisdiction is not an absolute goal in the Convention. Some requirements have been set up by the lawmaker delineating the scope of the Section, tending to ensure that the economic operator will be able to foresee where he or she may sue and be sued when entering into a contract with a consumer. It should be borne in mind that under Article 16 of the Convention the consumer has the choice between filing a claim with the courts of his or her own domicile – forum actoris– or those of the defendant.

By contrast, the other party to the contract is deprived of any choice: he or she can only file a claim with the counts at the consumer’s domicile. Like in a B2B case, the relevant domicile in this regard is the one at the date on which the court action is brought (see C 98/20, mBank). There is no doubt this rule always carries uncertainty with it, for no one can predict whether a potential defendant domiciled in a contracting State at the time a contract is concluded will move cross-border afterwards. The insecurity is the same no matter the type of contract, i.e, B2B or B2C. There is an important difference, however, in a B2B setting: because a choice of court is possible without any limitation, and also Article 5(1) remains available, the parties can figure out jurisdiction from the very beginning.

The logical inference from those two points would be that, in case the consumer moves to another contracting State after the conclusion of a contract which, at that point in time, was purely domestic, it is for him or her to cope with the risks and costs of cross-border litigation. In other words: if the consumer is the one transforming a domestic situation into an international one, he or she should stand the consequences of internationality (in terms of jurisdiction).

Thirdly, it is true that at first sight, Article 17(3) of the Convention makes it difficult to claim than Section 4 of Title II does not apply to situations lacking an international element (more precisely: an international element resulting from the domicile of the parties) when the contract is entered into. As a matter of fact, the provision endorses the premise that balance is needed between protecting the consumer and offering predictability to the professional. The Opinion explains why it would be neither sound nor advisable to infer that Article 15(1)(c) applies to situations of supervening internationality on the basis of the mere existence of Article 17(3). It recalls in this regard, among other, the fact that the mechanism the latter rule relies on – choice of court clauses- may not be admissible under the law of the contracting States.

This notwithstanding, one cannot simply ignore Article 17(3). Therefore, the AG will try to offer an interpretation of Article 15(1)(c) apt to conciliate both the objective of protecting the consumer from the inconveniences deriving from internationality (including one which the consumer him- or herself creates), and the objective of providing the other party to the contract with foreseeability as to the courts having international jurisdiction. To this aim, Article 15(1)(c) of the Convention could be interpreted as encompassing any situation in which the professional pursues its economic activity in, or directs it towards, States other than that where he or she is domiciled, including the State where the consumer is domiciled at the time when  proceedings are instituted.

In the past, the Court has rendered decisions which could be read as supporting the opposite hypothesis, that is to say, Article 15(1)(c) applies in any event, independently of whether the international element is present when the contract is entering into or appears at a later stage due to a change of domicile of the weaker party, who moves to another contracting State . Just like the referring national court, the AG considers those Court’s judgments and orders not categorical. He claims instead that the “weighty consequences which applying the consumer protection rules brings to bear upon a professional surprised by a change of domicile by the consumer which it was not expecting or could not have foreseen call for an explicit examination of this issue.” Whether this “explicit examination” will end up with the endorsement of the Opinion remains to be seen: to be clear, judging from the jurisprudence of the Court of Justice in consumer matters, the odds are against. The Court has steadily shown a clear pro-consumer tendency and it is unlikely that it will give it up now: at least, not without a sign from the lawmaker, which has already been suggested in the literature, see for instance here (or maybe, by making litigation more costly for the business party to the contract, the Court is indirectly pushing in support of ADR mechanisms).

In the meantime, should the Court decide not to follow the Opinion, I would like to add that a clause in a domestic contract with the consumer whereby he or she must communicate the change of abode does not provide for predictability as a factor to decide whether to engage or not in deals with a specific consumer. It will prove useful for other purposes, though, such as service of process (if the consumer complies with the obligation).

The latest issue of the Journal of Private International Law contains the following articles:

Lachlan Forrester, Resulting trusts in the conflict of laws: an Australian perspective

The common law world continues to grapple with how to properly characterise equitable doctrines in private international law. There has been extensive criticism of the existing approach to characterisation and choice of law for equity which favours separately characterising equitable obligations and applying the lex fori. Within this broader discourse, a debate is beginning to emerge around issues involving both equitable obligations and immovable property. In this early debate, two schools of thought have developed with respect to the proper characterisation and choice of law for implied or resulting trusts over immovable property. The first approach, advanced primarily by the courts, characterises the trust as an equitable obligation governed by the lex fori. The second approach, primarily endorsed by commentators, characterises the trust as an issue of immovable property governed by the lex situs. This paper, upon evaluating the lex fori and the lex situs against the underlying objectives of choice of law, rejects both approaches as unfit for purpose. Instead, it advocates a new approach to the characterisation and choice of law for resulting trusts. This paper proposes that resulting trusts be governed by the proper law of the relationship. This conception would align with the approach taken to express trusts under the Hague Trusts Convention and most effectively provides for consistency and clarity while upholding the reasonable expectations of the parties.

María Mercedes Albornoz and Sebastián Paredes, No turning back: information and communication technologies in international cooperation between authorities

The usefulness of ICTs is on full display when it comes to international cooperation between authorities in civil and commercial litigation. The core international conventions on cross-border cooperation (currently in force) were drafted many decades ago, when the overwhelming growth of ICTs was unimaginable. Setting the focus on Latin America, where legal regional integration has not yet reached the level attained by the European Union, this article assesses whether the selected legal sources reject, tacitly accept, or encourage the use of ICTs in international cooperation. The analysis of international conventions, some soft law instruments and domestic PIL rules supports the argument that an adequate legal framework that accepts the use of ICTs in international cooperation is necessary. Indeed, there is no turning back from the use of technologies in this field, where modern and suitable regulation would strengthen legal certainty, of utmost importance for the parties involved in cross-border litigation.

Sirko Harder, The territorial scope of Australia’s consumer guarantee provisions

Australian Consumer Law provides for consumer guarantees, according to which the taking of a particular action (for example, the application of due care and skill) or the presence of a particular fact (for example, a particular quality) is deemed as guaranteed where goods or services are supplied to a consumer in certain circumstances. Remedies lie against the supplier or (where goods are supplied) against the manufacturer or both. Pursuant to its application provisions, Australian Consumer Law applies to conduct outside Australia if one of several alternative criteria is satisfied. One criterion is that the defendant carried on business within Australia. There is no express requirement that the defendant’s business activities in Australia include the transaction with the plaintiff. This article argues that comity requires an implied restriction on the territorial scope of the consumer guarantee provisions, and searches for the most appropriate criterion for that purpose.

Lance Ang, Party autonomy, venue risk and jurisdiction agreements – the Singapore position reappraised

Party autonomy is the defining principle of private international law today. Notwithstanding its broad acceptance, what does party autonomy mean in the context of jurisdiction agreements? The lack of commercial certainty in how the agreement to “submit” to the jurisdiction of the courts in the chosen forum will be interpreted and enforced by the courts defeats the very purpose of party autonomy itself, which is the management of venue risk by commercial parties in entering into cross-border transactions. In light of recent developments, the Singapore court has blurred the distinction between exclusive and non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements by holding that the same requirement of “strong cause” applies if a party reneges on its agreement to “submit”. This is premised on the same strict contractual analysis and enforcement of both types of agreements. It is against this background that the approach of the Singapore courts in determining the exercise of their own jurisdiction under the common law will be reappraised, along with a comparison with the practice of the English courts.

Marco Giacalone, Irene Abignente and Seyedeh Sajedeh Salehi, Small in value, important in essence: lessons learnt from a decade of implementing the European Small Claims Procedure in Italy and Belgium

This article examines the extent to which the European Small Claims Procedure (ESCP) has served the main purpose of the EU legislature to establish a legal framework to improve access to justice for creditors of cross-border small claims through a simplified, expedited and inexpensive redress mechanism. This article first analyses the implementation of the ESCP in Italy and Belgium. These two countries were chosen because of the authors’ research on the Small Claims Analysis Net (SCAN) Project (The SCAN Project was initiated in 2018 as a two-year project with the fundamental aim of evaluating the efficiency of the European Small Claims Procedure within several EU Member States (France, Belgium, Italy, Slovenia, and Lithuania), besides raising awareness of this procedure among consumers and other judicial stakeholders. For the conducted activities as part of the SCAN project, see http://www.scanproject.eu accessed on 24 February 2021). The second part of this article deals with the impact of this regulatory instrument on access to justice for citizens, in view of the principle of judicial efficiency. Finally, this article focuses on the possibility of using this instrument for collective redress, on the one hand, and linking this procedure to online dispute resolution, on the other.

Agne Limante, Prorogation of jurisdiction and choice of law in EU family law: navigating through the labyrinth of rules

This article focuses on the scope of party autonomy in EU family regulations, especially in cases of marriage dissolution with an international element. Through the lens of a case study, the author analyses whether provisions allowing party autonomy in EU family regulations are consistent and wide enough to enable parties to find a solution that best fits their interests. The paper concludes that the advantages of party autonomy in private international family law outweigh the associated risks which should be mitigated by safeguarding measures.

Jan L. Neels, Characterisation and liberative prescription (the limitation of actions) in private international law – Canadian doctrine in the Eswatini courts (the phenomenon of dual cumulation)

The via media technique of characterisation in private international law, as proposed by the Canadian author Falconbridge, was – over a period of three decades – gradually adopted by the courts in Lesotho, South Africa, Zimbabwe, and, more recently, Eswatini. In a particular dispute, which is used as angle of incidence for the discussion below, the High Court of Swaziland (now Eswatini) applied the rules of the lex fori pertaining to liberative prescription (the limitation of actions) against the background of the via media technique. The decision was overruled by the Supreme Court of Eswatini, which – using the same technique – applied the proper law of the contract in this regard. In this contribution, the Canadian doctrine and its application by the Eswatini and other Southern African courts is critically discussed. The scenario in the Eswatini cases provides an example of what the author calls the phenomenon of dual cumulation. He attempts to provide guidance for the development of Southern African private international law in this regard beyond the via media technique.

The Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales (REEI), whose current editor-in-chief is Prof. de Miguel Asensio, a founding member of the EAPIL, is an open-access journal published by the Spanish Association of International Law and International Relations Professors (AEPDIRI). The journal exists since 2000; it is open to specialized research works on public international law, private international law and international relations. Those willing to submit a paper are invited to comply with the instructions available here.

The latest issue is number 41, of June 2021. The following contents are of direct interest for PIL:

José Ignacio Paredes Pérez, Contratos de suministro de contenidos y servicios digitales B2C: problemas de calificación y tribunales competentes (B2C contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services: problems of characterization and competent courts)

The purpose of this study is to analyse the characterization problems posed, for the purposes of the application of the European rules on international jurisdiction, by the legal actions available to the consumer in the new European regulation on improving consumer access to digital goods and services, and the possible fragmentation of litigation relating to the same infringing conduct under Directive (EU) 2019/770 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In the context of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the autonomous characterization of the legal actions available under the new regulation, and the way in which this is done, is decisive, depending on whether or not the contract falls within the scope of articles 17 to 19.

María del Carmen Chéliz Inglés, La Convención de Singapur y los acuerdos de mediación comercial internacional (The Singapore Convention and the international commercial mediation agreements)

The Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements resulting from mediation represents a milestone in the determined promotion of this dispute resolution mechanism and puts an end to the absence of a harmonized legal framework to regulate this issue. The most significant advance is that it gives a new legal status to the agreements resulting from international commercial mediation, which become directly enforceable in all the States that ratify the Convention. In this context, the objective of this work is to analyze the key issues of the Singapore Convention, highlighting its lights and shadows, and assess what repercussions the adherence to said normative instrument would have on the Spanish legal system.

Georgina Garriga Suau, Blockchain-based smart contracts and conflict rules for business-to-business operations (Blockchain-based smart contracts y normas de conflicto para operaciones entre profesionales)

In recent years, the irruption of blockchain technology has enhanced the impact of smart contracts in the international trade scenario, although not without raising some problems, particularly, in terms of Private International Law. This paper, thus, addresses such problems when it comes to determining the applicable law from a business-to-business perspective leaving aside the particular problems raised by the conflict-of-law rules oriented to protect the weaker party to a contract. The analysis, however, starts with a general approach to the two concepts which are the object of this paper: smart contracts and blockchain technology.

As usual, the journal contains as well a section commenting on selected relevant decisions on PIL delivered in the six months prior to its publication. Reviews on recent monographs or collective books follow.

The remaining contributions in this issue relate to public international law or international relations. Those (like me) with a specific interest in procedural law will surely find worth reading these two:

Laura Aragonés Molina, Unidad o fragmentación en el Derecho internacional procesal: la revisión de sentencias ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (Unity or fragmentation in international procedural law: revision of judgments at the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights)

The increasing specialization of Public International Law and the diversity of international courts and tribunals with specific competences ratione materiae and personae in the multiple international normative sectors are still generating challenges for coherence, consistency and predictability of international jurisprudence. Procedural rules and principles may have a cohesive effect on judicial practice and foster a judicial dialogue and cross-fertilization at a procedural level. It may contribute to the unity of the international legal order through the formation of common rules of procedure. In this paper we explore this cohesive effect exhaustively, studying the interaction between the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights when they interpret and apply the revision provision.

Montserrat Abad Castelos, Rendición de cuentas por los crímenes cometidos durante el califato del Daesh: las pruebas como clave (Accountability for crimes committed during the ISIS caliphate: evidence as key)

This article seeks to determine if evidence can be a way to overcome the existing difficulties in the field of justice to hold Daesh members accountable for the atrocity crimes committed in Syria and Iraq during the armed conflicts that took place there. To get this, recent innovations are examined both the actors that collect and preserve evidence and the nature, characteristics and challenges that evidences pose. It will be concluded that the developments that are taking place are crucial and, consequently, have the capacity to trigger a paradigm shift that might be reflected in the outcome of pending prosecutions, in order to ensure the responsibility of the perpetrators of the crimes. Nevertheless, at the same time, it also shows how evidence is not the only key to take into account, since the problems related to the exercise of jurisdiction in domestic orders, which go far beyond the legal plane, will also be transcendental.

On 9 September 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in UM (C‑277/20), in which, for the first time, it sheds light on doubts concerning the applicability of the EU Succession Regulation to donations mortis causa. The preliminary questions originate from the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). In the judgment, the Court of Justice shared the view presented earlier this year in the opinion delivered by Advocate General de la Tour. This post is a slightly modified version of an Op-Ed published on EU Law Life.

Facts of the Case

ZL, a German national, had entered into a contract with his son UM and UM’s wife XU in 1975. Under the contract, where Austrian law was chosen as applicable, it was provided inter alia that ZL undertakes to erect a house on his immovable property located in Austria which would transfer mortis causa to XU and UM in equal shares. The transfer would occur on the death of ZL, but not before the house has been completed. If UM and XU were to divorce, the transfer mortis causa would be construed as having been made to UM alone. ZL expressly declared that the immovable property was to be transferred as a donation mortis causa. ZL authorised the transfer of ownership to be recorded in the Austrian Land Register upon production of a death certificate and proof that the conditions listed in the contract were fulfilled. Prior to the death of ZL in 2018, UM and his wife had divorced, and she had subsequently died.

Succession proceedings were commenced in Germany, the place of ZL’s habitual residence. For the purposes of those proceedings, UM applied to the court in Austria to be registered as the owner of the immovable property in question. Before the case reached the Austrian Supreme Court, the courts of two instances took the view that Austrian law is applicable and, therefore, in the absence of proof of satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the contract, rejected UM’s application. The Austrian Supreme Court decided to submit a preliminary request to the Court of Justice to clarify whether the donation mortis causa might be classified as an agreement as to succession covered by the material scope of the Succession Regulation and, in the affirmative, whether the choice of Austrian law as applicable remains valid.

Donation Mortis Causa as an Agreement as to Succession

To understand the first question posed to the Court of Justice, it is important to recall that pursuant to Article 3(1)(a) of the Succession Regulation, “succession” is defined as “succession to the estate of a deceased person”. It covers “all forms of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death”. This transfer may be “through intestate succession” or “under a disposition of property upon death”. At the same time, a disposition of property upon death means, inter alia, an “agreement as to succession” (Article 3(1)(d)), which is “an agreement … which, with or without consideration, creates, modifies or terminates rights to the future estate or estates of one or more persons party to the agreement” (Article 3(1)(b)).

Having the above in mind, the Court of Justice noted that the notion of an agreement as to succession must be given an autonomous interpretation (para. 29) and that it “refers generally to any agreement which, inter alia, creates rights to the future” estate (para. 30). The Court of Justice further cited the definition of succession provided for in Article 3(1)(a) of the Succession Regulation to conclude that “a contract under which a person provides for the future transfer, on death, of ownership of immovable property belonging to him or her and which confers rights in his or her future estate on other parties to that contract, constitutes an “agreement as to succession” within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b)” of the Regulation (para. 32). Referring to its previous judgment in Oberle (C-20/17), the Court of Justice stated that its conclusion is supported by the principle of unity of the succession (para. 33).

The Court also recalled that Article 1(2)(g) of the Succession Regulation excludes from its scope assets transferred otherwise than by succession, for example gifts, but it noted that this exclusion should be interpreted strictly (para. 34). As a result, where “a disposition of property contained in an agreement relating to a succession consists (…) in a donation, but does not take effect until the death of the deceased”, it is covered by the scope of the Regulation (para. 35).

When it comes to the differentiation between donations inter vivos and mortis causa, the opinion is more elaborate than the judgement. It even refers to Article 1(2)(d) of the 1989 HCCH Succession Convention and its explanatory reportunderlying that even though the Convention never entered into force it inspired many provisions of the Regulations (para. 38 of the opinion). As a result, it plays an important role while interpreting the Regulation itself. The report states that the notion of “disposition of property upon death” excludes inter vivos dispositions having immediate proprietary effect. When it comes to disposition of property upon death “it is upon the death of the person so disposing, and not in any respect at any earlier time, that the disposition (or transfer) takes place” (para. 41 of the explanatory report).

The opinion indicates also that Article 1(2)(g) of the Succession Regulation should be read together with recital 14 thereof, which explains that the law applicable to the succession “determines whether gifts or other forms of dispositions inter vivos giving rise to a right in rem prior to death should be restored or accounted for the purposes of determining the shares of the beneficiaries” (para. 36 of the opinion). This suggests that donations excluded from the scope of the Regulation are only those that might be classified within a broader term of “dispositions inter vivos giving rise to a right in rem prior to death”. A contrario, dispositions giving rise to a right in rem after the death are not covered by the exclusion provided for in Article 1(2)(g) of the Succession Regulation. The Court of Justice seems to share this view but does not justify it in such detailed manner as the opinion.

Given the above, the Court of Justice concluded that “a contract under which a person provides for the future transfer, on death, of ownership of immovable property belonging to him or her to other parties to the contract is an agreement as to succession” within the meaning of the Succession Regulation. As a result, the agreement at hand should be covered by the material scope of the Succession Regulation.

Choice of the Applicable Law to the Donation Mortis Causa

Knowing that, the second question that the Court of Justice had to answer was whether it is possible to choose the law applicable to the succession of an asset indicated in the donation mortis causa, as in the contract at hand the Austrian law was chosen as applicable.

It must be noted that, in accordance with the Succession Regulation, the law applicable to succession is the law of the last habitual residence of the deceased (Article 21(1)), subject to the operation of the escape clause (Article 21(2)) unless the deceased has chosen the law applicable in the disposition of property upon death in accordance with Article 22. The Regulation contains also transitional provisions, as according to Article 84 thereof its rules apply from 17 August 2015 (Article 84) but only to the succession of persons who died from that date onwards.

Pursuant to Article 83(2) of the Regulation, where the deceased had chosen the law applicable to his succession prior to 17 August 2015, that choice remains valid if it meets the conditions laid down in the Regulation itself or in the rules of private international law which were in force, at the time the choice was made, in the state of either the “habitual residence” or (one of) “nationality” of the deceased.  That is the expression of favor validitatis principle, which aims to prevent the choice of applicable law to succession made in the past from becoming invalid due to the change in law, namely, replacement of domestic international succession rules by the Succession Regulation.

The doubt before the Court of Justice was whether Article 83(2) of the Succession Regulation may apply to the choice of the applicable law (namely, Austrian law) contained in the donation mortis causa contract signed in 1975. The answer was negative. The Court of Justice held that Article 83(2) concerns only “the validity of the choice of law applicable to the succession as a whole”, whereas (it seems that) “the choice of Austrian law concerned only the agreement as to succession concluded by the deceased in the main proceedings in respect of one of his assets and not the succession as a whole, with the result that the condition for applying Article 83(2) of that regulation cannot be considered satisfied in such circumstances (para. 39)”.

This seems a reasonable conclusion, provided that the Succession Regulation is built on the unitary principle, meaning that one single law governs succession. This principle applies functionally, meaning that one single law governs succession “from the opening of the succession to the transfer of ownership of the assets forming part of the estate to the beneficiaries” (recital 42 of the Regulation) and territorially, meaning that one single law governs succession “irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State” (recital 37).

Additionally, it might be added that the choice of applicable law with respect to agreements as to succession (Article 25) relates only to the question of their admissibility, substantive validity, and their binding effects between the parties, including the conditions for their dissolution. This should not be equated with the choice of law applicable to succession as a whole (which governs succession in general, for example, the question of liability for debts – Article 23(2)(g)).

Conclusion

To conclude, it was rightly confirmed in the UM judgment that, in accordance with the Succession Regulation, a donation mortis causa giving rise to a right in rem after the death of the donor constitutes an agreement as to succession within the meaning of this regulation. Additionally, in general, in a succession case there might be more than one disposition of property upon death, including agreements as to succession providing for donations mortis causa of particular assets, but there can only be one single law applicable to succession as a whole, which governs “all civil-law aspects of succession to the estate of a deceased person” with respect to all the assets of the deceased.

I am delighted to announce the publication of the last edition of the Code de droit international privé luxembourgeois. The main purpose of the book is to gather all the norms applicable in Luxembourg in the field (international conventions, European regulations and national legislation).

A new feature of the book is to include references to case law. Now that Luxembourg courts have made many of their judgments publicly available, it was possible to identify many cases which have applied the most important of these norms and offered interesting interpretations. The book also identifies interesting cases in those fields where the law is entirerly judge made, such as choice of law in filiation or matrimonial matters (for anybody married before the entry into force of the Matrimonial Regulations).

The code is a perfect companion to my treatise on Luxembourg private international law. The first volume, which is dedicated to choice of law in the fields of obligations, property and corporations, was published a year ago (Droit international privé luxembourgeois, vol. 1 : Conflits de lois – Théorie générale, Obligations, Biens, Sociétés).

The next volume will be dedicated to international litigation and arbitration in Luxembourg, and will hopefully be published soon after the Luxembourg parliament will pass a new law on arbitration.

On 9 September 2021 the Court of Justice pronounced its judgment in the case RK (C-422/20) concerning the mechanism of the transfer of jurisdiction under the Succession Regulation. The judgement also gives an insight into transitional provisions of the regulation. The preliminary questions originate from the Higher Court in Cologne (Oberlandesgericht Köln). The opinion on the case was delivered earlier this year by Advocate General Szpunar. The case was already commented here by Matthias Weller.

Facts of the Case

A mutual will was drafted in 1990 in German language, in which CR and her husband (German national) designated each other as heirs. After the death of the husband, last habitually resident in Spain, CR applied to a German court for, inter alia, a European Succession Certificate. The jurisdiction of German courts was successfully contested by RK, the deceased’s brother. Hence, CR commenced proceeding in Spain. On CR’s request, the Spanish court decided not to hear the case noting that German courts are better placed to do so, due to practical circumstances, including CR’s residence and location of assets. CR filed another application to German court accompanying it with the decision of the Spanish court.

Transfer of Jurisdiction Mechanisms

It is worth reminding that pursuant to Article 4 of the Succession Regulation, the courts of the Member State of the last habitual residence of the deceased are competent in succession matters. Also, the law applicable is designated by this connecting factor (Article 21(1)), which allows for the coincidence of ius and forum so desired by the Regulation. It may happen however that the deceased has chosen (one of) national laws as applicable, which results in the distortion of the ius and forum principle. To avoid this (at least to certain extent), the Regulation, as explained by recital 27 “provides for a series of mechanisms”, which should restore the situation, in which the competent court applies its own succession law as applicable. These mechanisms are provided for in Articles 5 – 9 of the regulation and consist of the “transfer” of jurisdiction to the courts of the Member State the law of which was chosen as applicable by the deceased.

In accordance with one of the mechanisms, based on Article 6(a), the court seized pursuant to Article 4, may at the request of one of the parties, decline jurisdiction if a court of another Member State is “better placed to rule on the succession” given “practical circumstances of the succession, such as the habitual residence of the parties and the location of the assets”. In such case, pursuant to Article 7(a), the “national” courts “have jurisdiction to rule on the succession”, provided that “a court previously seised has declined jurisdiction in the same case” pursuant to Article 6.

Declining of Jurisdiction

In the RK case, the Oberlandesgericht Köln has doubts if it may assume that the Spanish court declined its jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(a), given that this is not clearly stated in its decision. Answering this first question, the Court of Justice underlined that it is not crucial that the declining of jurisdiction is express, as long as refraining from hearing the case indicates that the court will not hear it, because another court was found to be better placed to do so (para. 37). This conclusion is justified by the aim of creating in the EU an area of freedom, security and justice based in the mutual trust between Member States (para. 37). The Court of Justice found that the regulation does not provide for the form, in which the declining of jurisdiction should be pronounced (para. 36). It also noticed that the Spanish court used the expression of the Spanish language version of the regulation, namely “to refrain from hearing” (abstenerse de conocer), instead of “to decline jurisdiction”, which is used in other language versions, including the German one. The difference in the wording in the language versions of the regulation and the resulting differences in the wording of decisions should not be relevant, when the intention of the declining court is clear enough.

Assuming jurisdiction after decline

The Oberlandesgericht Köln had also doubts if before assuming jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(a) it may verify whether the prerequisites for declining jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(a) were met. Namely whether a valid choice of applicable law was made, whether there was an application for “transfer” filed by one of the parties and whether it was examined if another court is in fact better placed to hear the case (para. 41).

Answering the second question, the Court of Justice underlined that no such verification may be exercised (para. 52). The Court of Justice classified the decision on declining jurisdiction as a “judgement” subject to automatic recognition in other Member States, without any possibility of reviewing it as to its substance (para. 45-47). Such conclusion is justified by the principle of mutual recognition of judgements and mutual trust (para. 48). It seems that as an effect of such recognition the court seized pursuant to Article 7(a) must assume jurisdiction (compare para. 58 in fine of the opinion).

The Court of Justice does not give clear response to the doubt that resonates in the opinion whether the decision on declining jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(1) is binding the court seized pursuant to Article 7(1) as to the determination of law applicable, as declining jurisdiction assumes the exitance of a valid choice of applicable law made by the deceased. On one hand, the court of a Member State assuming jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(1) should be able to assess independently, which law is applicable (para. 36 opinion). On the other hand, one should not differentiate between a choice of applicable law, which is valid for the purpose of declining jurisdiction and a choice, which is valid for the purpose of establishing applicable law (para. 46 of the opinion). The opinion seems to opt for the “stronger” effect of the judgement, including the determination as to applicable law (para. 46 in fine of the opinion).

Choice of Applicable Law Presumption

As already mentioned, the prerequisite for declining jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6(1) is that “the deceased had chosen as the law to govern his succession the law of a Member State of which he was a national (recital 27)”. In the case at hand, the mutual will of 1990 contained no such choice. As, pursuant to Article 84, the Succession Regulation applies from 17 August 2015 to the succession of persons who die starting from that day (Article 83(1)), it contains transitional provisions relating to dispositions of property upon death made before 17 August 2015 of a deceased person, whose succession is governed by the Succession Regulation.

Pursuant to Article 83(4), in case of a disposition of property upon death made prior to 17 August 2015, there is a presumption that the deceased has chosen as applicable the law, in accordance with which this disposition was made, provided that this law could be chosen pursuant to the regulation (namely, it is a national law of the deceased). For example, in the commented case, assuming that the mutual will was indeed made in accordance with German law (at least, as mentioned in the judgment, it was prepared in German language), German law is presumed to be chosen by the deceased, who was a German national at the moment of making the choice and/or at the moment of death. Unfortunately, the Court of Justice is silent on how to determine whether the disposition was made “in accordance with” a given succession law.

The answer to the third preliminary question posed by the Oberlandesgericht Köln concerns the above provision of Article 83(4). The Court of Justice stated that the choice of applicable law, which is the prerequisite for transfer mechanism of Article 6(1) may result from the operation of the above presumption (para. 61). However, as results from the answer to previous questions, the court assuming jurisdiction pursuant to Article 7(1) is not allowed to verify the existence of the prerequisite.

Conclusion

It seems that in RK the Court of Justice provides for practical solutions, considering specificities of procedural laws of Member States and understanding that declining jurisdiction may be pronounced in different forms. The conclusion that no control may be exercised over the decline decision pursuant to Article 6(1) also seems perfectly in line with mutual trust principle as implemented in the instruments on EU judicial cooperation in civil matters. It is not entirely clear however whether this decision has a binding effect on courts of other EU Member States also with respect to the determination of applicable law, as a valid choice made by the deceased is a prerequisite for such decision. Additionally, one may regret that the Court of Justice have not elaborated on what does it mean that a disposition of property upon death was made “in accordance with the law” of a given state for the purpose of Article 83(4).

Marketa Trimble (University of Nevada, Las Vegas, William S. Boyd School of Law) has posted The Public Policy Exception and International Intellectual Property Law on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

Public international law affects private international law (conflict of laws) in a myriad of ways. This article discusses potential effects of international intellectual property (“IP”) law on the application of the public policy exception, which is used as a limitation on the application of foreign law and on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. The article describes the function of the exception and its treatment in existing academic projects on IP law issues in private international law. It provides examples of the uses of the exception in IP cases and contemplates the frequency of the use of the exception in such cases. The article reviews international IP treaties, including IP chapters of free trade agreements, as possible sources of relevant public policies and evaluates whether a foreign IP law compliance with international intellectual property treaties could serve as a factor in the public policy exception analysis. The article suggests that courts give some weight in the public policy exception analysis to a finding of a foreign IP law’s compliance with international IP treaties but recognizes that the proposed approach would need to be nuanced and account for diverse circumstances.

The article is forthcoming in the Annali Italiani del Diritto D’Autore, Della Cultura e Dello Spettacolo.