EAPIL blog

In Re G (Abduction: Consent/Discretion) judgment issued on 9 February 2021 the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) of England and Wales ruled on an appeal proceeding following an order to return issued by the High Court of Justice (Family Division) based on the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.

The importance of the case is related to the interpretation of the provisions of Article 13 of the Convention, the existence of consent and the exercise of discretion by the requested court in ordering the return of the child when consent is established.

The proceedings were initiated by the father who consented to the mother bringing the children to England. In first instance the High Court ordered the return of the two children to Romania to their father. Following an appeal by the mother, the Court of Appeal reversed the order.

Background

Between 2015 and 2018, the parents and their children I and P have relocated twice from Romania to England. In 2018, the father returned to Romania while the mother and the two girls remained in England. In February 2019 the parents agreed to divorce in Romania. On 14 March 2019 the parents entered into a notarised agreement by which the mother could travel out of Romania with the children, without the father, for a period of three years.

During the divorce procedure the parents discovered that if they wanted their children to live in England with the mother, they had to go through a court divorce. In order to avoid this on 15 April 2019 they entered into a notarised agreement that parental authority would be exercised by both parents and that after the divorce the children would live with the mother in Romania. This is required by Article 375(2) Romanian Civil Code for the finalisation of the divorce procedure. However, in fact, the parents agreed that the children would continue to live with the mother in England.

In an attempt to reconcile, the parents agreed that the girls will spend a trial period with the father in Romania, while the mother remained in England. Thus, for a period of five months (September 2019 – February 2020) the children were with the father in Romania. The mother continued to work in England and the father and children visited for Christmas. During this period the parents agreed that it would be better overall for the children to return to live in England with the mother.

On 5 February the mother traveled to Romania to take the children back to England. When meeting the father in Romania she told him that she formed another relationship with another man. Although upset, the father gave the mother the children traveling documents, birth certificates and helped with the packing of the children’s belongings. The mother and the children remained with the mother’s parents the evening before returning to England.

Without the mother knowledge the father visited a notary on 5 February and executed a document revoking his agreement from March 2019 allowing the mother to travel with the children. The father gave the documents to his Romanian lawyer who sent it to the border authority, but did not inform the mother of the revocation of content although he bound himself to do so and was aware that the revocation was only effective from the moment of its communication to her.

By the time the revocation was registered by the Romanian authorities the next day, the mother together with the children already flew to England.

Proceedings in Romania

On 16 March 2020 the mother begun proceedings in Romania seeking an order that she did not require the father’s permission for the children to travel. She has since made further applications and the proceedings are ongoing. The Romanian Judge was aware of the proceedings in England.

Proceedings before the High Court

On 17 July 2020, the father issued proceedings in England seeking the children’s summary return to Romania. Before the judge he argued that he had showed the revocation of consent document to the mother when they first met on 5 February. However, the Judge found that while the mother was in Romania the father neither gave her the revocation document nor informed her of its existence, and she had only learned about it when she saw it on the family’s shared photo drive five days after she returned to England.

Further, the mother argued that the children were not habitually resident in Romania on 6 February 2020 so that their removal was not wrongful, that the father had consented to the removal, and that the older child objected to the return. The child’s objections defence was scarcely pursued, and the Judge rejected it.

The High Court Judge concluded that at the time of their removal the girls were habitually resident in Romania, the father consented to the removal, but based on the exercise of his discretion granted by the Convention the Judge would order to return of the children to Romania as the jurisdiction that should determine the issues related to their welfare.

Appeal Judgment

The mother sought permission to appeal on three grounds. The Judge stayed the return order and granted permission to appeal on two grounds: (1) assessment of habitual residence of the children and (2) the exercise of judge discretion in ordering the return of the children. The father thought to uphold the same order for additional reasons.

Habitual residence

With regard to the assessment of the habitual residence. The appeal judges in paragraph 22 considered that the High Court Judge:

directed himself correctly by reference to the summary of principle contained in Re B (A Child) (Custody Rights: Habitual Residence) [2016] EWHC 2174 (Fam) at [16-19], as approved with one significant amendment by this court in Re M (Children) (Habitual Residence: 1980 Child Abduction Convention) [2020] 4 WLR 137; [2020] EWCA Civ 1105 at [63]. His task was to assess the degree of the children’s integration in their Romanian social and family environment, and in doing so to focus firmly on their actual situation as opposed to weighing their comparative connections with the two jurisdictions. (…) But here they had oscillated between two countries with which in both cases they had strong social and family connections. Up to 5 February they were living with their father and grandparents under arrangements that might, had their parents reconciled, have continued along similar lines. The conclusion that they were significantly integrated, and accordingly habitually resident, in Romania is one that was clearly open to the Judge.

Therefore this ground of appeal was reject by the Court.

Consent

With regard to assessment of existence of consent, the analysis focused on the following exception in Article 13 of the Convention:

Notwithstanding the provisions of the preceding Article, the judicial or administrative authority of the requested State is not bound to order the return of the child if the person, institution or other body which opposes its return establishes that – 1. the person, institution or other body having the care of the person of the child… had consented to or subsequently acquiesced in the removal or retention; …

In summarising the Court’s practice in previous case law – Re P-J (Children) (Abduction: Consent) [2009] EWCA Civ 588 [2010] 1 WLR 1237, drawing on the decisions in Re M (Abduction) (Consent: Acquiescence) [1999] 1 FLR. 174 (Wall J); In re C (Abduction: Consent) [1996] 1 FLR 414 (Holman J); In re K (Abduction: Consent) [1997] 2 FLR 212 (Hale J); and Re L (Abduction: Future Consent) [2007] EWHC 2181 (Fam); [2008] 1 FLR 914 (Bodey J). Other decisions of note are C v H (Abduction: Consent) [2009] EWHC 2660 (Fam); [2010] 1 FLR 225 (Munby J); and A v T [2011] EWHC 3882 (Fam); [2012] 2 FLR 1333 (Baker J) – the Judge concluded that the key point of analysis rested on whether the giving or withdrawing of consent by the remaining parent must have been made known by words and/or conduct to the removing parent and whether the consent or withdrawal of consent of which a removing parent is unaware can be effective. This remained to be clarified by the Court as this did not arise for consideration in the above reported cases.

The court proceeded to analyse the interpretation of the text of the Convention on this point in paragraph 26 as following:

there are compelling reasons why the removing parent must be aware of whether or not consent exists. The first is that as a matter of ordinary language the word ‘consent’ denotes the giving of permission to another person to do something. For the permission to be meaningful, it must be made known. This natural reading is reinforced by the fact that consent appears in the Convention as a verb (“avait consenti/had consented”): what is required is an act or actions and not just an internal state of mind. But it is at the practical level that the need for communication is most obvious. Parties make important decisions based on the understanding that they have a consent to relocate on which they can safely rely. It would make a mockery of the Convention if the permission on which the removing parent had depended could be subsequently invalidated by an undisclosed change of heart on the part of the other parent, particularly as the result for the children would then be a mandatory return. Such an arbitrary consequence would be flatly contrary to the Convention’s purpose of protecting children from the harmful effects of wrongful removal, and it would also be manifestly unfair to the removing parent and the children.

In applying this reasoning to the case before them, the judges found that Judge’s primary findings of fact could not be challenged. The appeal judges agreed that although the father had developed misgivings, given his action to remove the consent by the notary, this actions showed otherwise. But, in fact, his behaviour the evening before their departure showed that he had not in fact withdrawn his consent, he had delivered the children and their passports to the mother on the eve of travel and he did not show the revocation document to the mother.

The Court agreed that the ‘best guide to the father’s eventual state of mind was to be found in his own actions’ (paragraph 29) and although having second thoughts he had not in fact withdrawn his consent. Therefore, the High Court Judge was not obliged to give weight to the sending of the revocation by the lawyer to the border authority because the revocation had been made known to the mother.

The Court concluded that ‘[c]onsent under the Convention is more than a private state of mind. Even if the father had in fact decided to withdraw his consent, it was necessary for the mother to have been made aware of that before the children departed’; therefore, the finding of the first Judge was upheld in appeal.

Discretion

On the exercise of discretion with regard to ordering a summary return of the children to Romania, the appeal judges acknowledged that the exercise of the discretion under the Convention is highly case-specific and has to be carried out within a framework of policy and welfare considerations.

Therefore, the court proceeded to weight in all relevant factors: the desirability of a swift restorative return of abducted children; the benefits of decisions about children being made in their home country; comity between member states; deterrence of abduction generally; the reasons why the court has a discretion in the individual case; and considerations relating to the child’s welfare.

By relying on Re J (A Child) (Custody Rights: Jurisdiction) [2006] 1 AC 80 at [12], the appeal judges found that the High Court Judge made an error of approach in attaching significant weight to the Convention considerations favouring the return based on a theoretical assessment rather than weighting in the relevant factors to the particular circumstance of the case. Thus, the Court considered it is bound to intervene for the following reasons (paragraph 49):

• The judge had ‘approached the balancing exercise incorrectly’ with regard to his discretion.
• ‘He then gave significant, indeed predominant, weight to policy considerations without explaining why he was doing so. He noted that the mother had been entitled to remove the children but he did not take into account that there was in consequence no reason for restorative or deterrent action. As to comity and home-based decision-making, he gave no weight to the fact that England is at least as much their “home country” as Romania – apart from the interrupted period of 20 weeks, these young children aged 6 and 3 had lived here for the last 2½ years. Nor did the Judge explain why it would be beneficial for the children to be in Romania while the Romanian court made its decisions. On the information now available, that can happen wherever the children are living, and there was no contrary information before the Judge. Moreover, as the leading proposal for the children’s future is for them to live with their primary carer in England, it might be thought that there was some advantage in the assessment being made while the children are here.
• In contrast, the Judge gave no identifiable weight to the reason for his being invested with a discretion, namely that the father had agreed to the removal, nor to the inherent unfairness of his then succeeding in summoning the mother and children back.
• The only other positive reason for a return order was that the children could have contact with their father in the interim, but that had to be balanced against the other consequences of summary return and the fact that it had been the father’s original decision to live in a different country to the children. The other matters (that some delay had been due to the pandemic, that the children are used to travelling, and that the mother would return with them) were not reasons in favour of a return, but factors that might mitigate its disadvantages. The Judge also accepted the father’s offer of protective measures at face value, even though his evidence had been fundamentally untruthful and he had already shown himself to have taken legal measures behind the mother’s back.
• The welfare analysis did not address the negative impact of a summary return at all. The children appear to be settled in the colloquial sense and the fact that they have been backwards and forwards in the past is not a reason why that should continue. The Judge noted that the mother would return and could apply to relocate, but he attached no weight to the limbo in which the children would meanwhile be living, or to their important relationship with their maternal grandmother, or to the disruption caused to their mother, who is resident in England and upon whose employment the children depend, or to the prospect of the children being sent to Romania only to return to England if the mother was given permission to relocate, or to I’s wishes. All in all, an effective summary survey of the welfare issues in this case was not carried out; had it been, it would have pointed strongly towards maintaining the interim status quo’.

The Court concluded that in this case the child-centre welfare considerations outweigh policy considerations’ and that the children current situation gave rise to no obvious concerns, and there were no advantage (and considerable disadvantage) in them being moved from where their father had agreed they should be in order for a decision to be taken about their future. Therefore, the Court of Appeal set aside the order for return finding that the exercise of the discretion was erroneous.

A new edition of Geert van Calster’s European Private International Law. Commercial Litigation in the EU has just been published by Hart.

The third edition of the book is a valuable addition to the library of any scholar, practitioner and student interested in matters of Private International Law. The book can serve as a good introduction into the topic for non-EU readers and a refreshing text for those familiar with the EU reality. The author’s experience as a practitioner is a plus for the analysis the book provides. Specific insights into national case law developments on particular aspects of private international law add to the richness of information the reader gets. Compared with the previous edition, the updated text includes some new sections on the realities of Brexit for European Private International Law and developments of the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

The blurb reads:

This classic textbook provides a thorough overview of European private international law. It is essential reading for private international law students who need to study the European perspective in order to fully get to grips the subject.

Opening with foundational questions, it clearly explains the subject’s central tenets: the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II Regulations (jurisdiction, applicable law for contracts and tort). Additional chapters explore the Succession Regulation, private international law and insolvency, freedom of establishment, and the impact of PIL on corporate social responsibility. The new edition includes a new chapter on the Hague instruments and an opening discussion on the impact of Brexit.

Drawing on the author’s rich experience, the new edition retains the book’s hallmarks of insight and clarity of expression ensuring it maintains its position as the leading textbook in the field.

More information about the book can be found here. The table of contents and a sample reading of the book are available here and here.

The publisher offers a 20% discount to the readers of the EAPIL blog who order the book online at www.hartpublishing.co.uk. Using the code UG7 at the checkout to benefit from the discount.

In two judgments delivered on 10 December 2020, the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) extended the reach of French attachments to any claims owed to third parties established in France, irrespective of whether the third party had its headquarters in France or abroad, and irrespective of the situs of the debt.

In the most spectacular case, the Cour de cassation allowed the attachment of rents owed by an American law firm to the United States of America with respect to a building in Paris, because the American law firm was a partnership with an office in Paris.

In both cases, the creditors were represented by French boutique law firm Archipel, which has engineered the most innovative enforcement strategies in recent years in France (in particular against foreign states such as Congo).

Background

The creditor in the first case was an employee of the U.S. embassy in Paris. After he was dismissed, he sued the U.S. in French courts. The U.S. raised a number of procedural arguments, including that it had not been lawfully served, and that the personal immunity of the Ambassador prevented that he be made a joint party to the proceedings (in addition to the U.S.). In 2009, the French court rejected the arguments of the defendants, held that the dismissal was unfair and ordered the U.S. to pay over € 130,000. The U.S. refused to pay. The plaintiff had passed away in the meantime, so his heirs went back to court to obtain an order that the U.S. complies with the judgment under penalty of € 1,000 a day. The U.S. argued that the judgment had not been properly served and still refused to pay (was that to Make America Great Again?). The total sum reached € 734,000.

The U.S. owns a building in Paris that it has been renting to Jones Day for its Paris office. I understand that Jones Day is a U.S. partnership headquartered in Cleveland, Ohio. The Paris office does not have an autonomous legal personality.

The French lawyers of the employee served Jones Day in Paris with an attachment order over the rents owed by the firm to the United States.

Traditional Paradigm: Situs of the Debt

Although it was never clearly formulated by the Cour de cassation, it was widely admitted in France that the focus of the principle of the territoriality of enforcement was the location of the relevant asset. As far as debts are concerned, this meant the situs of the debt. The understanding was thus that French enforcement authorities could attach debts located in France. As debts are intangibles with no genuine location, a rule was designed, which is not uncommon: debts were deemed to be located at the domicile of the debtor. For legal persons with branches in several countries, this meant at their headquarters.

On this basis, the Cour de cassation allowed French attachement orders to reach funds held in bank accounts in foreign banches of French banks. Although the court had not expressly said so, analysts agreed that the rationale for this outcome was that the debts of the foreign branchs were situated in France, at the headquarters of the French bank.

In this case, the debt was owed by an entity headquartered in the U.S. Under the traditional paradgim, it was thus situated in the U.S., and thus beyond reach of French enforcement measures. On this ground, the lower courts set aside the attachments. The employee appealed to the Cour de cassation, and his lawyers clearly argued that a shift in paradigm was necessary.

New Paradigm: Establishment of the Third Party

The Cour de cassation allowed the appeal and confirmed the validity of the attachment of the rents owed by Jones Day to the United States.

It held that French enforcement officers could reach any third party established in France, and that, for that purpose, a third party was established in France either if it had its seat in France or if it had there any “entity” with the power to pay the debt of the debtor.

The court then made clear that whether the situs of the debt  might have been in the U.S. was irrelevant.

These rules were deduced from a redefinition of the rule of territoriality of enforcement, that the court linked to the principle of sovereignty and independence of states, ie its view of public international law. The court held the said rule meant that constraint could only be exercised on a third party established in France. It was thus concerned with persons rather than assets.

Assessment

The shift from a paradigm focused on the location of intangible assets to a paradigm focused on the location of third parties is convincing. Intangible assets in general, and debts in particular, have no physical existence, and are thus located nowhere. The location of debts at the domicile of debtors is artificial, and it is unreasonable to determine the jurisdiction of enforcement authorities on such a factor.

While the shift in paradigm is convincing, the details of the new regime will have to be determined. The criteria for determining the establishment in France of third parties were not fully debatted before the court. It is not clear what the court meant by its reference to entities with the power to pay the debt of the debtor. I will report later on the second case in which a bank established in France was found not to be such an entity.

The University of Amsterdam in collaboration with the Open University, Maastricht University and Tilburg University are organising a conference on Transformative effects of covid-19 on globalisation and law, to be held online on 16 and 17 September 2021.

The conference is organised within the research project named Transformative Effects of Globalisation in Law (TEGL) funded by the Dutch Ministry of Education as part of the multi-year Sectorplan Social Sciences research initiative. The event is envisaged as a series of panels, organized bottom-up and discussing specific angles and questions related to COVID-19 effects and globalisation of law. 

As no area of life remains unaffected by the Coronavirus pandemic – from travelling to doing groceries and from grieving to global politics, there are signs that some of the effects of this period are more transient, while others are here to stay: the pandemic will have had transformative effects in a number of domains. What about law?

Within the research theme Transformative effects of Globalisation in Law, the organisers want to look at the possible transformative effects of the pandemic through three main lenses: boundaries and international cooperation, transformative effects on markets and transformation of institutions. The conference will close with a roundtable reflecting on the implications of the ongoing transformations – (how) can law help in reconstructing “better”, in light of the further crises we are all facing?

As possible themes to be explored, think of the following: Coordination and multi-level pandemic governance; Vaccines, TRIPs exceptions and IP caution; Evidence-based law and policy in the pandemic; Will free movement ever be the same again?; Covid-19 and global trade; Love and care at the time of Covid: reproductive labour; The contestation of expertise and/or; Independent agencies and regulatory institutions – a new role for central banks and competition authorities?; Covid-19 and courts: how to test government intervention in the midst of a global emergency?;Covid-19 and the Anthropocene.

The organisers invite scholars from within and outside the Transformative effects of globalisation in law theme to convene a panel on one of these themes or a related theme investigating by preference the transformative effects of the pandemic on the legal configuration of international cooperation and boundaries, institutions and markets.

Interested scholars must provide an abstract for their panel, including a tentative list of speakers, by 1 April.

More information about the call can be found here.

The post below was written by Alex Layton, of Twenty Essex, London. It is the third and final contribution to an on-line symposium devoted to the fate of the 1968 Brussels Convention, launched after a post by Matthias Lehmann (Brexit and the Brussels Convention: It’s All Over Now, Baby Blue?), which attracted comments by Eduardo Álvarez-Armas, Apostolos Anthimos, Gilles Cuniberti, Burkhard Hess, Costanza Honorati, Alex Layton, François Mailhé and Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti. The previous contributions to the symposium, by Andrew Dickinson and Serena Forlati, can be found here and here.

Since the start of this year, the United Kingdom has been outside the Brussels-Lugano regime and it remains very doubtful that it will be welcomed back into the Lugano Convention 2007 in the near future. In this situation, as previous posts on this blog show, some ideas persist about whether the old Brussels Convention (1968, as amended) and the earlier Lugano Convention (1988) may have taken on a new relevance following the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union. I shall aim to show that such ideas are misplaced.

The latest development to prompt this discussion is the decision of the District Court of Zurich of 24 February 2021 (here, in German) to deny recognition of an English judgment dated September 2020 and to dismiss the application for a declaration of its recognition dated 18 February 2021. The decision is discussed by Rodrigo Rodriguez in a post on this blog dated 10 March. He says that the Zurich court refused to recognise the English judgment pursuant to the Lugano Convention. And if that is indeed what it decided, then I would agree with him (diffidently, as I am not a Swiss lawyer) that the point was wrongly decided by the Zurich court. But I am not sure that that is what it decided and even if it were I reach that conclusion by a somewhat different route.

I shall first explain my reasons for taking that view, and then turn to the question – also much discussed on this blog and elsewhere – on whether the Lugano Convention of 1988 might have provided an alternative basis for thinking the decision was wrongly decided and the related question of whether the old Brussels Convention of 1968 might also be revived.

Zurich Decision

The Lugano Convention 2007 formed part of the law of the European Union which, by reason of Article 127 of the Withdrawal Agreement, continued to apply “to and in” the United Kingdom during the transition period which ended on 31 December 2020. The critical point is that until that date, the UK was a State bound by the Convention. Article 33(1) of the Lugano Convention provides:

A judgment given in a State bound by this Convention shall be recognised in the other States bound by this Convention without any special procedure being required.

By that Article Switzerland undertook to recognise the English judgment from the time that it took effect in its own state of origin. Recognition of the English involves the extension of its authority into the Swiss legal order. It gained that authority in England – and hence also in Switzerland – in September and (so far as I am aware) nothing occurred in Swiss law to revoke the authority which it gained at that time.

The question of the enforcement of the English judgment is of course different. Here, the Lugano Convention, (like its counterpart in Regulation 44/2001 [Brussels I] but unlike Regulation 1215/2012 [Brussels I bis]), still provided for enforcement to take place following the issue of an exequatur. I can well see that by February 2021, the United Kingdom was no longer a “State bound by this Convention” within the meaning of Article 38(1) of the Lugano Convention which therefore would not (at least readily) provide a legal basis for an order for its enforcement. It would be a matter for Swiss procedural law to provide a mechanism for the inchoate recognition of the English judgment to be weaponised for the purposes of enforcement.

In the event, I think this is what the Swiss court actually decided. The judgment notes that the application was for a Vollstreckbarerklärung – a declaration of enforceability – which is what Article 38 relates to, rather than a declaration of recognition (Annerkennung). Indeed Article 38(1) is expressly referred to in the judgment.

In the converse situation, if an English court were now called upon to enforce a Swiss judgment given before 31 December 2020, it could clearly not do so pursuant to any legal powers in the Convention. English law is a dualist system and the domestic legislation giving effect to EU law – and hence to the Lugano Convention – was repealed with effect from 31 December 2020. Unlike the provisions of Brussels I bis, which continue to have effect in respect of judgments given in other EU states before that date, by reason of Article 67(2) of the Withdrawal Agreement, no such provision was made in respect of the Lugano Convention. This is not surprising, as it was not within the competence of either the EU or the UK to provide for the continued application of the Lugano Convention in relation to non-EU Contracting States. The statement by the Swiss Federal Office of Justice suggesting that the Lugano Convention would continue to apply cites the principle that jurisdiction is founded as a matter of principle upon the commencement of proceedings. But, with great respect,  that seems to me to lose sight of the distinction between adjudicatory jurisdiction to which that principle applies, and enforcement jurisdiction which probably requires a separate analysis.  The statement also cites doctrine pointing to Article 67.2 of the Withdrawal Agreement by way of analogy, but rightly does not concur with that view. Such an analogy would anyway be unconvincing unless Switzerland has ceded to the EU treaty-making powers in the field of civil justice (which I am not aware that it has).

How would an English court react in the converse situation? Although I am not aware of any case in which it has been tried, it is at least arguable that English law would recognise a Swiss decision made before 31 December 2020 and would find an alternative procedural means (such as an action for a declaration of recognition, or an action at common law on the Swiss judgment relying on its prior inchoate recognition under Article 33) that would enable this to occur. English law provides that a repeal does not affect any right acquired under the repealed enactment (Interpretation Act 1978, s. 16((1)(c)) and the extended authority of the Swiss judgment pursuant to Article 33 would probably confer such a right on the judgment creditor.

Interestingly enough, the non-application of the Lugano Convention after 31 December 2020 for a judgment given before that date was recognised as a potential issue in UK – Norwegian relations. By an Agreement signed in Oslo on 13 October 2020, the old bilateral convention on recognition and enforcement of judgments dating from 1961 was updated in certain respects, and provided, by Article 2(2), that:

The Parties shall continue to apply the rules of the Lugano Convention 2007 concerning recognition and enforcement of judgments, to the same extent that those rules applied immediately before the Lugano Convention 2007 ceased to apply to the United Kingdom and subject to the same limitations set out therein, to judgments given in proceedings that were instituted in a court of one of the Parties before the Lugano Convention 2007 ceased to apply between the Parties.

There was no equivalent bilateral convention between the United Kingdom and Switzerland, but there would be nothing to stop the UK and Switzerland – neither of which is now bound by the exclusive external competence of the European Union – from concluding a bilateral agreement to the same effect. Does the absence of an equivalent agreement with Switzerland perhaps support the idea that the Lugano Convention does not have an after-life in Anglo-Swiss relations?

Lugano 1988 (and Brussels 1968)

So, if Lugano 2007 does not live on, does the old Lugano Convention of 1988 maybe have an after-life? And if this involved an EU state, would the 1968 Brussels Convention maybe also have an after-life? In summary, a purposive interpretation of Brussels I and Lugano 2007 leave little or no room for doubt that the older instruments were intended to be consigned to the history books. The arguments have been well canvassed in earlier posts, notably by Andrew Dickinson, and I will not go over them again here.

But what of a literal textual interpretation?  True, the Lugano Convention of 1988 continues to govern relations with those non-European territories of France and the Netherlands to which the 2007 Convention has not been applied by their European ‘mother’ states: Articles 69(7) and 73(2). But this seems to me to be nowhere to the point. Also true, the 1988 Convention is not among those superseded by Lugano 2007 as defined by Article 65 and Annex VII. But Article 69(6) of the 2007 Convention is clear enough in providing that it “shall replace” (French: remplace; German: ersetzt) the 1988 Convention. That was a stipulation which was binding on the United Kingdom at the time, and which continues to bind Switzerland. It conveys a displacement of the old convention and the emplacement of the new convention. It does not leave linguistic room for the revival of the displaced.

So, what of the Brussels Convention of 1968?  Admittedly, when it was overtaken by the Brussels I regulation, the latter provided by Article 68 that it “shall …. supercede” the Brussels Convention, and that “supercede” has a less definitive tone that “replace”. But any such linguistic distinction disappears when confronted by other language versions. French uses the word “remplace” as in Lugano 2007.  The German text states “tritt … an die Stelle” (literally, “takes the place of”).

But perhaps the best literal argument for the afterlife of the Brussels Convention is that Article 70 of Brussels I (and also of Brussels I bis) provides that conventions referred to in Article 69 “shall continue to have effect” in relation to matters to which the Regulation does not apply. Read in isolation, that might suggest a revival of the Brussels Convention in relation to those Member States which were parties to it in its last amended form (that is, before the 2004 expansion of the EU). But the argument is harder to sustain when it is read together with Articles 68 and 69. Article 68, as we have just seen, provides for the Brussels Convention to be superceded, while Article 69 in turn refers to conventions which cover the same matters as  Brussels I, but then goes on to list “in particular” conventions not including the Brussels Convention. Although linguistically Article 69 can be read as including the Brussels Convention, read in context it is plain that it is not contemplated by Article 70.

Finally, the last word as far as English law is concerned lies with the UK legislator, which has repealed the provisions which gave effect to both Lugano Conventions and the Brussels Convention. In a dualist system, that is the end of the matter. If other states choose to regard  those instruments as still being in effect, that is a matter for them; but if their domestic legal systems require reciprocity as a condition of recognising foreign judgments, they will not find it in English law except in the limited class of cases in which English law recognises foreign judgments. Both under bilateral conventions, of which there are half a dozen with other Member States (France, Belgium, Netherlands, German, Italy and Austria) and under English common law, recognition is accorded only to final judgments for fixed sums of money given by a court of a country within whose territory the defendant was present when the proceedings began or to the jurisdiction of which the defendant agreed or submitted.

In conclusion, it is clear to me that both theoretically and as a matter of practical application of the law, and subject only to transitional exceptions for the Brussels I bis regulation and minor exceptions for non-European territories of Member States for both the Brussels and the Lugano instruments, the entire Brussels-Lugano regime no longer applies as between the United Kingdom and either other Member States or other Lugano states. Apart from Norway.

So, now, the question is whether the UK will be re-admitted to the 2007 Lugano Convention. The UK made its application in April 2020 and Switzerland, Norway and Iceland have all given their approval. But the EU (including Denmark in its own right) has yet to make its position clear. By Article 72(3) of Lugano 2007, it shall endeavour to give its consent at the latest within one year after the invitation by the Depositary. It only has a few weeks left, and its consent looks increasingly unlikely.

The author of this post is Olivera Boskovic, who is Professor of Private Law at the Université de Paris.

Background

On 12 February 2021, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom delivered its judgement in Okpabi and others v. Royal Dutch shell and another. The action was brought by two Nigerian communities against Royal Dutch Shell, the UK-domiciled parent company of a multi-national group of companies and its Nigerian subsidiary. The appellants claimed that numerous oil spills in the vicinity of their communities had caused environmental harm leading to damage to health and property.

The first question was a jurisdictional one. Could the UK courts hear the case? This depended, among other questions, on “whether the claimants had an arguable case that a UK domiciled parent company owed them a common law duty of care so as to properly found jurisdiction against a foreign subsidiary company as a necessary and proper party to the proceedings”.

As underlined by Eva-Maria Kieninger, contrary to the decision in Vedanta, the Supreme Court did not clearly distinguish in Okpabi, as it should have, jurisdiction over the parent company and jurisdiction over the subsidiary. Having said that, at first instance and on appeal, it was held that “there was no arguable case that RDS owed the appellants a common law duty of care to protect them against foreseeable harm caused by the operations of SPDC”. On the contrary, the Supreme Court answered this question affirmatively and allowed the appeal.

A very important part of the jurisdictional question is thus solved in favour of the appellants. However, the final result is uncertain since the High court after remitting may still have to address some jurisdictional issues, at least concerning the subsidiary, such as forum non conveniens and/or access to justice in Nigeria which were not addressed in these proceedings.

The decision is in line with the landmark case Vedanta Resources PLC and another (Appellants) v Lungowe and others (Respondents), decided in 2019.

Key Findings

Concerning the duty of care, at the jurisdictional stage, the key points to remember are the following :

• When determining the arguability of the claim at the interlocutory stage, the court should focus on the particulars of the claim, rather than the weight of the evidential case. Factual assertions on which the claim is based should be accepted by the court unless, exceptionally, they are demonstrably untrue and unsupportable and this will be the case only in very exceptional cases. Mini-trials should be avoided. On the documentary evidence it is particularly important to note that the preferred test is “are there reasonable grounds for believing that disclosure may materially add to or alter the evidence relevant to whether the claim has a real prospect of success » (§128)? (For the purpose of comparison, on the difficulties of access to documents which could establish the exact way of functioning of the group of companies in the French context see an interesting example Paris Court of Appeal, 17 September 2020, no. 19/20669)
• The existence of duty of care depends on the circumstances. There is no limiting principle such as the one the Court of Appeal relied on when deciding that the issuance of group wide policies can never give rise to a duty of care. Secondly the Court of Appeal focused inappropriately on the issue of control which in fact should only be the starting point. A duty of care may arise regardless of the issue of control as in the situation where the parent holds itself out as exercising that degree of supervision and control over its subsidiaries even if it does not in fact do so.
• As already stated in Vedanta, “the liability of parent companies in relation to the activities of their subsidiaries is, not of itself a distinct category of liability in common law negligence”. The general principles which determine such liability are “not novel” and hence do not require “an added level of rigorous analysis”

Jurisdiction: A Comparative Perspective

After Vedanta and Okpabi one can now say that English courts seem more prepared to hear cases brought at the same time against UK based companies and their over-seas subsidiaries. This is a very important step. Under the Brussels regime, no longer applicable in the UK, jurisdiction for an action brought against a UK domiciled company was easy to establish, but it was associated with the extreme difficulty of establishing liability (However, it is worth noting that the future is unclear; will the UK join the Lugano Convention or will it go back to common law rules on jurisdiction ?).

On the other hand, jurisdiction for an action brought against over-seas subsidiaries was very uncertain. Indeed, jurisdiction against foreign companies for damage sustained in a foreign country by foreign claimants was considered as problematic not only in the UK but in many countries.

In France, before the 2017 Duty of vigilance Act was adopted the main rules for jurisdiction based on the domicile of the defendants, the place of the harmful event or the nationality of the claimant did not allow French courts to assert their jurisdiction in such cases. Two possible grounds for jurisdiction, co-defendants and the risk of denial of justice, did exist, but both were very uncertain.

In 2017 the French Parliament adopted the Duty of Vigilance Act requiring certain large companies to identify risks that their business creates for human rights and the environment and prevent violations. Under certain conditions these companies can be liable for damage caused by their subsidiaries or companies in their supply chain. This means that, since 2017, mother companies can be considered as proper defendants. Hence, within the limited scope of the Duty of vigilance Act the co-defendants rule should be able to found the jurisdiction of the French courts over foreign subsidiaries. Outside of its scope, the situation remains uncertain.

At EU level, a recent proposal was made to introduce a forum necessitatis in the Brussels I recast which would, under certain conditions, give jurisdiction to Member States’ courts  to decide on business-related civil claims on human rights violations brought against undertakings located in third-countries, but within the supply chain of an EU undertaking. It was also proposed to amend the Rome II Regulation (see the posts of Geert Van Calster, Giesela Rühl, Jan von Hein, Chris Thomale, Eduardo Álvarez-Armas). Both of these proposals were rejected last week.

Choice of Law

Accepting jurisdiction is only the beginning.  The next step, which will be more difficult, is establishing liability. The liability of the subsidiary will, no doubt, be governed by the law of the place of the damage, which is also the law of the place of the causal event and the law of the place of the domicile of the subsidiary.

However, concerning the liability of the mother company one can hesitate. In Okpabi, the court considered that liability was governed by Nigerian law, which was identical to English law.

For environmental torts, Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation gives the claimant a choice between the law of the place of the damage and the law of the place of the causal event. Although this rule seems favourable to the claimants, the definition of the terms “causal event” gives rise to many questions. Is the causal event necessarily the material act that triggered the environmental damage or could one consider that decisions and environmental policy can constitute the causal event?

For other types of damage, the general rule in Article 4, and therefore the law of the place of the damage, applies. This means that in situations where one cannot consider that the local law is identical to the law of the domicile of the mother company, the choice of law question might be problematic.

In the light of these considerations, it appears that the discussion about the modification of the Rome II regulation proposed by the Committee on legal affairs of the European Parliament and rejected last week was a very important one (Although, the suggested rule was far from perfect, the idea of introducing such a rule was, to say the least, worth considering. On this modification see among others O. Boskovic, ‘La loi applicable aux «actions pour violations des droits de l’homme en matière commerciale»’, Recueil Dalloz 2021, p. 252).

Even though courts are starting to address these questions with existing tools (It is worth noting that the first appeals decision resulting in a victory on the merits for the victims in a foreign direct liability case was rendered on 29 January 2021 by the Hague Court of Appeal in the case of Four Nigerian Farmers and Milieudefensie v. Shell), a well drafted European choice of law rule would be very welcome. The same could be said of a European approach of mass tort litigation, the risk of which is raised by this decision. But this is yet another story.

Based on the priorities defined for the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union in the area of Justice, the Ministry of Justice of Portugal will host on 30 March 2021 a conference under the title Protecting Vulnerable Adults Across Europe – The Way Forward.

The relevance of private international law – and, specifically, the Hague Convention on the International Protection of adults – to the realisation of the fundamental rights of adults with disabilities features among the key topics of the conference.

Speakers include Salla Saastamoinen (Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, European Commission), Zampia Vernadaki (Secretariat of the JURI Committee, European Parliament), Philippe Lortie (First Secretary, Hague Conference on Private International Law), and Jean-François de Montgolfier (Ministry of Justice, France).

Older persons, people with physical, intellectual, sensory or psychosocial impairments, and victims of hate crime or gender-based violence are among those adults who may face particular challenges in exercising their rights, defending their interests and accessing justice in civil and criminal proceedings.

Cross-border situations may further exacerbate these issues by creating additional obstacles with respect to language, representation and differences in national legal systems. This can particularly affect ‘vulnerable’ adults wishing to exercise their right of freedom of movement within the Union. In addition, the COVID-19 pandemic has increased the difficulties that this population faces.

These challenges affect a significant proportion of the European Union’s population. European societies are ageing and Eurostat expects that, by 2050, one-fifth people in the EU will have some form of impairment. This is likely to result in an increase in the numbers of people who may need support to protect their interests and participate on an equal basis with others in civil and criminal proceedings.

Since 2008, initiatives in the area of civil law have promoted the ratification of the 2000 Convention on the International Protection of Adults and discussed how to improve its application. Yet the overall situation in the EU remains far from satisfactory.

In the area of criminal law, the new EU Strategy on Victims’ Rights 2020-25 recognises the need to explore how to enhance the protection of adults in vulnerable situations.

In addition, since 2018, all EU Member States – and the EU itself – are States Parties to the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.

As the protection of ‘vulnerable’ adults is one of the priorities of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the EU in the area of Justice, the Portuguese Ministry of Justice, the European Commission and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (FRA) are organising a virtual High-Level Conference on 30 March 2021.

This event provides an opportunity to reflect on the current situation and look ahead to what steps are necessary to ensure that all members of our diverse societies can enjoy their fundamental rights, including equal access to justice, in practice.

Attendance is free. The practical information to attend may be found here. See here for general information on the event, including the detailed programme.

Gustavo Cerqueira and Nicolas Nord have edited a collection of essays, mostly in French, on the ascertainment of foreign law, titled La connaissance du droit étranger: à la recherche d’instruments de coopération adaptés. The book was published by the Société de législation comparée in late 2020.

The editors have kindly provided the following presentation in English.

Foreign law occupies an increasing place in practice not only for the judge, but also for other legal professions: notary, civil registrar, lawyer in particular. The most apparent causes for this increase are the proliferation of European Union regulations in private international law and the development of jurisdictions or specialized chambers in international litigation and the application of foreign law. A real competition has appeared in this regard for several years. Beyond the only aspect of litigation conventionally considered, the taking into account and the application of foreign law becomes essential for other perspectives: obligation of advice, non-contentious matters, drafting of acts, asset optimization, planning of international corporate transactions, among others.
The stakes are therefore crucial and the search for suitable cooperation instruments for a good knowledge of foreign law is essential.
This book contributes to the reflections on this subject. It thus includes an important inventory which makes it possible to update the diversity of regimes in the legal orders studied and the heterogeneity of professional practices. Concrete solutions are also proposed. They are the result of cross-discussions and round tables during the conference held at the French Cour de cassation on 28 November 2019.
While the apparent objective may be to achieve the adoption of a general instrument with the widest possible geographical scope, it quickly appeared vain to try to favor such an approach at present. On the one hand, each profession has different needs, on the other hand, the level of development of the different systems compared is not the same. While some are lagging behind and are struggling to adopt satisfactory rules in this area, others are at the forefront and therefore are really in demand for a cooperation instrument whose usefulness does not seem obvious to them. The various contributions and debates made it possible to consider paths for reflection as numerous as diverse, ranging from the revitalization of old instruments to the creation of specialized institutions at internal, international or European level, including the establishment of specific mechanisms or the use of artificial intelligence. Such an abundance shows the crucial nature of the issue and the vitality of the reflections carried out on it, but also the relevance of having debated it and the need to continue to do so.
In this sense, the next stage of this debate could be that of the opportunity of adopting a European regulation on the matter.

The book comes with a preface by Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon. The authors include, in addition to the editors themselves: Cyril Nourissat, François Ancel, Cyril Roth, Dominique Foussard, Olivier Berg, Nicolas Nord, Jochen Bauerreis, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler, Gustavo Ferraz De Campos Monaco, Patrick Kinsch, Maria Rosa Loula, Jean-Noël Acquaviva, Jean-Louis Van Boxstael, Marie Vautravers, Rodrigo Rodriguez, Wolfgang Rosch, and Françoise Monéger.

For more information, including the table of contents, see here.

On 5 February 2021, a seminar entitled ‘The Netherlands, a forum conveniens for collective redress?’ was organised by the Amsterdam, Maastricht and Tilburg Universities, together with the Open University. A brief account of the seminar will appear in the Dutch Journal on PIL, NIPR. Experts addressed procedural and private international law features in European and particularly Dutch mass claims.

One panel discussed PIL instruments needing rules on collective actions and settlements as featured in an earlier post on this blog. Another panel reviewed legal standing under the Directive on representative actions in the cross-border context (Directive 2020/1828) and was moderated by Ianika Tzankova (hereinafter, IT).

Paulien van den Grinten (PG) from the Dutch Ministry of Security and Justice, Axel Halfmeier (AH) from Leuphana University and Vincent Smith (VS) from BIICL participated in the panel discussion. Below follows a shortened record of their exchange.

Introduction

IT: The Dutch approach to certification or admissibility in collective redress comprises two distinct questions:

1. Who has standing to sue? The answer is: In general, designated and ad hoc entities that meet strict criteria (stricter perhaps than some of the criteria that the designated entities need to meet under the Directive in terms of governance, conflict of interest and financial capabilities); and
2. Is the entity admissible? Note that both ad hoc established and designated entities are subject to the test that relates to their ‘admissibility’ in relation to the particular matter.

Since ad hoc entities play an important role in collective redress in the Netherlands also in the international context the question is, how the new Directive will impact the activities of these entities. One could think of several points that arise:

– When could Dutch ad hoc established and certified organisations be acknowledged before the courts of other Member State (MS)?

– The Dutch admissibility test seems to be more onerous than the Directive’s requirements. Will that impact the admissibility of foreign designated entities in the Netherlands?

– Will judgments in collective redress obtained by Dutch ad hoc established and court approved entities be recognised abroad?

Ad hoc Entities

IT: A central role in the Directive is given to so-called ‘qualified entities’. Perhaps we should first explain what ‘cross border’ and ‘designated entities’ mean in the context of the Directive…What is a ‘cross border action’ under the Directive? And what is a ‘designated entity’?

PG: Designated entity in the Directive refers both to entities designated in advance to be placed on the list and to the entities designated via acceptance by the court in a specific collective action.

AH: Cross-border action is defined in Article 3(7) Directive 2020/1828 and has nothing to do with other facts of the case. It is defined as a situation where a qualified entity sues in a MS that is not the MS in which that entity has been designated. For example, if a German entity files in the Netherlands against a Dutch company in the interest of Dutch consumers, this is a ‘cross-border action’.

IT: Apparently there was little support at EU level to incorporate the Dutch model of collective redress, where ad hoc entities play an important role, including in collective matters with an international dimension (Trafigura, Petrobras, VW, Salesforce, Shell, Fortis, Converium etc). The philosophy was to follow in that respect the Injunctions Directive, where only ‘designated entities’ placed on a list were given a role in cross border matters. What do you think of that approach?

VS: One of the major issues with this would be under the Brussels Ibis Regulation. If a national court (e.g. in Amsterdam) appoints an ad hoc entity then, under Brussels Ibis, although the judgment of the Dutch court is supposed to be recognised in all other MSs (and if there is no equivalent procedure, a MS has to provide one), judgments can be refused recognition on public policy grounds. So, a foreign judge could refuse to give full effect to the Dutch judgment, because the ad hoc entity (stichting) was not properly representative of the (international) class, and thus limit recognition (for example), for only Dutch residents were bound by the action, and not those in his forum State. The Directive avoids this by requiring recognition, but only for prequalified entities and only (outside the entity’s home State) on an opt-in basis.

PG: If the concept of recognition and enforcement under Brussels Ibis would be changed and become stricter due to the concept of a cross-border action under the Directive, that would have wide implications. This was surely not envisaged by the European legislator. The aim of limiting cross-border representative actions to actions started by entities placed on a list designated in advance was to prevent so-called ad hoc entities starting a representative action in another MS. The majority in the Council saw this as a way of protecting their courts. It had, however, nothing to do with a rejection of the Dutch national system with ad hoc entities as such. On the contrary, recital 28 of the Directive makes it clear that at a national level ad hoc organisations for a specific representative action designated by way of acceptance are allowed under Article 4 of the Directive. I do not see that courts in another MS could refuse the recognition and enforcement of a judgment resulting from such action based on public policy.

IT: How often (to your knowledge) have the ‘designated entities’ under the Injunction directive in your respective jurisdictions made use of their powers to file actions in cross-border matters? And do you think we should be optimistic about the role of these entities under the Directive?

PG: Not aware of any. We do not know whether claiming monetary damages in a representative action under the Directive will lead to more cross-border cases.

 VS: (1) Not aware. In UK there are few designated entities; most consumer associations are campaigning bodies not equipped to litigate. The competition collective actions regime was amended in 2015 so that representative bodies no longer had to be pre-approved by the Minister before they could bring collective competition claims. Before then, only one organization (Which) had applied for designation under the previous (2002) regime, and had only brought one claim (unsuccessfully).

(2) One issue is the body’s objects (purpose). The likely candidates are mostly charities, the UK charities regulator requires them to adhere to their objects and many of them are limited to UK actions. In UK competition ‘class actions’ so far all the representatives have been individuals (with litigation funding). In contrast to other common law ‘class action’ jurisdictions, however, they have generally been individuals with significant practical/professional experience related to consumer protection. For example, the current Mastercard collective action is headed by a Chief Financial Services ombudsman.

AH: Cross-border actions are rare in Germany. A remarkable recent exception was the action brought by an Italian consumer association (Verbraucherzentrale Südtirol) against Volkswagen in the interest of Italian buyers of cars in the Diesel emissions scandal. However, this is not an injunctions action, but one brought under the German ‘model declaratory action.’ The German consumer association (VZBV) had used this instrument in their own action on behalf of German consumers but had explicitly refused to represent foreign consumers.

Pre-approved (Designated) Entities

IT: So, what you are all saying is that there is no reason to believe that the designated entities will be active in practice. That is not a cheerful news for consumers. However, there must be good reasons why the EU has done this. Let us explore the advantages and disadvantages of granting standing in collective redress in cross-border actions only to pre-approved (designated) entities.

Advantages:

PG: MS courts know that every entity from another MS starting a procedure before its courts meets the harmonised requirements for designated entities, thus making mutual recognition of such entities less problematic.

PG: MS of origin is best placed to test whether an entity meets the harmonized requirements.

Disadvantages:

PG: Some requirements are difficult to test in theory without a collective claim.

PG: It might lead to circumvention of national requirements, as they are stricter.

VS: Many such entities will need to amend their objects.

IT: The Dutch experiences with collective actions (25 years) show that there may not always be such pre-existing entities, when needed, willing to fund such actions in which case the ad hoc established ones fill in that gap. Absent such entities there might be an access to justice deficit.

Funding

IT: And what about funding of designated entities and of collective redress? Articles 10 and 20 of the Directive deal with that, the first one dealing with TPF and the second one with lifting financial restrictions for designated entities.

IT @ PG: You assisted the Dutch government with the Directive and must have some insight. Why are there two separate articles on a related topic? How are non-profit organisations supposed to file this type of (costly) action in their jurisdictions?

PG: The original Commission proposal contained an Article 7 on funding and an Article 15 on assistance of qualified entities. Even though Article 7 was deleted and Article 15 was redrafted, a new provision on funding was reinstated as Article 7, but became Article 10 (and Article 15 became Article 20) in the final text. The importance of Article 10 is twofold: for those in favour of allowing third party litigation funding for representative actions, Article 10 makes it clear that funding is allowed under the Directive on strict conditions. For those against allowing third party litigation funding for representative actions, the wording of Article 7 serves to restrict the conditions under which such funding is allowed. Still, the wording is opaque for those who did not participated in the negotiations. Especially the reference made to in Article 10(2)(b) that a third party funder may not fund a representative action against a defendant which is a competitor of the funder or against a defendant on whom the funder is dependent, gives rise to interpretation questions. What is the rationale behind these provisions? Recital 52 gives clues about the rule prohibiting the funding against a competitor. A trader acting in the same market is considered to have a conflict of interest “since the competitor could have an economic interest in the outcome of the representative action, which would not be the same as the consumers’ interest”. The concern of the European legislator was that the representative action might become an instrument to harm a competitor rather than serve the interests of the consumers. As regards the funder, who is dependent on the defendant the concern of the European legislator is the reverse: such funder might be so dependent on the defendant that its actions are based on the interests of the defendant rather than the interest of the affected consumers.

IT @ AH: what is the view and position on funding of designated entities in Germany?

AH: In Germany, the “Verbraucherzentralen” are maybe the most active designated entities, including their federal association, the VZBV. These are mainly government-funded. In particular, the VZBV received extra money and extra funding of staff to specifically bring the new ‘model declaratory actions.’ So, we are looking at entities that are formally private law associations, which are more like outsourced parts of the government administration. We will see whether this will create future conflicts of interests. Hitherto government financing has not stopped them from bringing cases against (partly) State-owned companies such as VW, but this action was politically supported. There are close ties between the VZBV and the German government.

IT: This is interesting, but this potential issue was apparently not addressed in the Directive. It looks like the focus on potential conflicts of interest in the Directive is entirely on actions that are TPF-ed. Correct?

PG: yes, this seems to be the case. The Directive is limited to actions by consumers for infringements of EU-instruments placed on the list of Annex 1. Representative actions under the Directive will be between a qualified entity as claimant and a trader as the defendant. With the exception of the GDPR, the government is not a likely party in such actions. Conflicts of interest regarding the government were not seen as a point of concern in the negotiations for most MS or the Commission/EP. However, for the Netherlands it was in fact, a point of concern both regarding the designation of qualified entities and financial support to qualified entities. This concerned the broad scope of the Dutch mechanism for collective redress which is not limited to consumer actions. In the Netherlands around 40 % of all representative actions are against the Dutch government as defendant.

Insight into the Negotiations

IT @ PG: What considerations brought us to where we are and what were the most controversial issues during these negotiations? I am puzzled by the fact that actual experience does not seem to count for much in such negotiations: the MS have on the one hand no or disappointing experiences with the system of ‘designated entities’ under the Injunctions Directive and there are better experiences under the Dutch regime, that allows both type of entities (for over 25 years). Did this play any role in the negotiations? What evidence was produced?

PG: At the start of the negotiations in 2018, some MS had a collective redress system in place, others were working on it and some MS did not have any mechanism for collective redress. Throughout the negotiations more MS started legislative projects on collective redress in various shapes and forms. The Netherlands had pending legislation when the negotiations started. In the preparation for Parliamentary process we unearthed many issues relevant to the Directive. Real experience was largely irrelevant in the negotiations – it was easier for us with a collective redress mechanism to indicate difficulties in the Directive. By the late 2019, the Dutch WAMCA had become law. The result of this was that the Directive and the Dutch WAMCA are compatible. The Directive leaves enough room to accommodate MS’s national systems, e.g. designating ad hoc entities as qualified entities and the possibility for both opt out and opt in mechanisms. For some other aspects the provisions of the Directive match those of the WAMCA perfectly, e.g. the court can reject a claim at inception if it is manifestly unfounded, can be found both in Article 7(7), of the Directive and in Article 1018c, par. 5 (c). Therefore, the WAMCA will be the Dutch collective redress mechanism under the Directive without having to change. However, we do have to provide for a procedure for entities to be placed on the list predesignated for cross border actions. The Article 10 funding provisions seem to be more detailed than the WAMCA. We may have to exclude competitors or someone dependent on the defendant to acts as funder.

 AH:  Little of the discussion about collective actions is evidence-based. ‘Abusive’ litigation seems unlikely. On the contrary, the experience in Germany shows that almost all such actions are well-founded and not frivolous. Even if we look at the empirical data in the U.S., we clearly do not find the ‘abuse’ scenario that is often painted on the wall.

IT @ PG: What were you most proud of in the negotiations? What were you most frustrated by, also in view of the fact that Dutch ad hoc spv’s seem to need to meet much stricter criteria than the EU ‘designated entities’ in terms of governance, conflict of interest and funding capabilities and yet they are being perceived as somehow of a ‘lower rank’ in cross-border matters? Who will be in charge in the Netherlands in appointing designated entities?

PG: The biggest achievement was European legislative result on collective redress at all, obliging every MS in Europe to have a collective redress mechanism for consumers. Making a distinction between national collective and cross-border collective redress brought a breakthrough in the negotiations. Accepting that for cross border cases we have to work with a list of entities designated in advance with harmonised criteria, meant that the Netherlands – and others, like Germany – could preserve their national system. Even though the harmonised criteria may look different or less strict than the criteria under the WAMCA, the rationale behind the criteria are very similar. There are practically no criteria in the WAMCA which do not meet one of the criteria in Article 4 of the Directive. E.g. the obligation in Article 3:305a (2) of the WAMCA to have a governance structure with a supervisory board can be seen as the implementation of the obligation in Article 4, par. 3, (e) to be independent and to prevent a conflict of interest. We intend to make the Dutch ministry of Justice and Security responsible for the list of entities designated in advance for cross border actions. One of the more difficult issues in the negotiations in the Council was that of the concept of standing of a qualified entity on the one hand and the civil procedural concept of the admissibility of a specific representative action on the other. To underline that distinction the Directive contains several references to the procedural autonomy of MS and the room for courts to perform an admissibility test in accordance with their national law, e.g. in Recital 12 and Article 7(3).

Non-Dutch Perspectives on the Directive – And on Dutch Collective Redress

IT: Apparently one can speak of ‘Dutch exceptionalism’ in the context of EU collective redress. Let us hear non-Dutch perspectives on the EU Directive and on Dutch collective redress.

IT @ AH and VS: What is your take on the issues? In view of the sectoral approach in your respective countries versus the Dutch horizontal one? Are there any other issues that you identify in that context?

AH: I think there are some open issues regarding the EU Directive’s rules on standing on the one hand and individual Member States’ rules on admissibility of collective actions on the other. For example, if Dutch law would be restrictive in allowing foreign designated entities to sue, this could possibly violate Article 6(1) of the Directive that basically requires Member States to accept cases brought by designated entities from other Member States. For example, if a designated entity from EU Member State X sues a Dutch company before a Dutch court, but with respect to that company’s activities in Member State X and in the interest of consumers in Member State X, I think that the Dutch court would have to hear the case. It is also interesting that the Directive in its Article 5(4) allows the defendant trader to raise objections against the legitimacy of the designated entity with regard to the Directive’s criteria. But the Directive is silent on the procedure in such a case: Should the action be stayed until the home Member State of the designated entity has decided about such concerns? With regard to Germany, the German government worked hard to avoid ad hoc entities in the Directive and has succeeded in this regard. But there may be some more room now for foreign entities to sue in Germany under the Directive.

PG: As regards AH’s example, I think a Dutch court would accept that this foreign entity has standing. Accordingly the new Directive is no different from the current one for actions to obtain injunctions, be it that the foreign authorities at least have had to apply the harmonised criteria in order to place this entity on the list. In that respect it offers a better safeguard than now. Furthermore, accepting legal standing does not mean that the admissibility of the specific claim cannot be tested by the court. E.g. the Dutch court may still check whether the claim brought by the designated entity sufficiently safeguards the interests of the claimants and whether the entity has means to finance the claim.

VS: UK experience with the sectoral regime for collective competition (anti-trust) claims is still young, but developing. However, there are some clearly emerging issues which will also likely arise when implementing and applying the Directive:

It is modelled on the (horizontally applicable) Canadian regime, so we have a model to follow for the tricky questions. Even though there are differences between the EU and Dutch regimes, the Dutch experience will still be valuable for MS courts wanting to find an answer to issues not expressly dealt with in the Directive or national implementing legislation. The Dutch regime has many similarities with what is required under the Directive and, I think is likely to be used as a model by others.

A ‘class’ action doesn’t work so well for non-economic loss (eg injury due to clinical negligence etc) due to widely differing circumstances, whereas the Dutch settlement element was set up to deal with exactly that situation.

A sectoral approach could lead to borderline cases — e.g. claims pretending to be about consumer law, when they are in reality competition law cases, which are not covered by the Directive.

Also, it may be difficult to tell in many cases whether a case is about breach of EU law or national law. For example, in the consumer protection and environmental protection fields, EU law is mostly contained in Directives which are then implemented by the MS. So, the ‘consumer’ (claimant) will only immediately see a breach of legal norms in his national legislation. For many, working out whether their claim is in fact based on EU law may be unnecessarily difficult.

PG: Yes, to me this is a key observation and is why we want the Dutch WAMCA to be our system under the Directive, meaning that there will still be only one system in the Netherlands.

Is the Directive a Threat to Dutch Cross-Border (Consumer) Actions?

IT @ all: To circle back at the beginning of our discussion, do you think that the limitation on standing to pre-approved entities in the new EU Directive is a threat to Dutch cross border (consumer) actions, what is your final word on that?

VS: In my view the ‘threats’ to cross-border actions by qualified entities are mainly that they do not have the experience in doing this and that their purpose may be national rather than international. The EU level umbrella bodies might be better placed (e.g. BEUC) but they would have to be recognized by a national authority (lots of applications for designation to the Belgian authorities in Brussels?). So, the most important aspects I think are willingness of national authorities to recognize the few international ‘entities’ who might want to do this – not specific to the Dutch situation, I think, and a willingness/expertise in acting cross-border.

PG: I agree. Let’s not forget that since the entering into force of the Injunctions Directive not a single cross border action was ever started in the Netherlands or elsewhere until last year’s action against VW. It is cumbersome and might be very expensive having to start a case in another jurisdiction, working with foreign lawyers etc.

AH: One of the areas in which the Directive is really a step forward is third-party funding of litigation. In Germany, there is considerable uncertainty after some court decisions that prohibited this as being immoral in relation to a certain type of consumer associations’ actions. We now have the language in Article 4(3) e of the Directive, which certainly is a compromise, but at least shows that TPF cannot be completely prohibited, but needs to be regulated and looked at in more detail. In general, I think that the Dutch courts will remain an attractive forum for cross-border collective actions, and I expect that the Netherlands will remain the innovation leader in this field.

IT: Thank you very much for sharing your views and insights on this fascinating and challenging topic.

This post was written by Rodrigo Rodriguez who is Professor on Insolvency Law at the University of Lucerne.

Since 1 January 2021, as a result of the UK’s “hard Brexit” in respect of the field of cooperation in civil matters, the UK has not been a formal member of the 2007 Lugano Convention anymore. Much has been written and zoomed on this issue.

On 22 February 2021, the district court of Zurich issued an – as far as I know – first decision (courtesy of arrestpraxis.ch) regarding the (non-)recognition of the UK judgement in Switzerland post-Brexit.

The decision refuses to apply the 2007 Lugano Convention rationae temporis to a UK decision of the High Court of London made in September 2020 (while the Lugano Convention was still applicable by virtue of the Withdrawal Agreement).

Upon request for recognition filed on 18 February 2021, the Zurich court concludes, in a short reasoning, that since 1 January 2021, the 2007 Lugano Convention is not applicable anymore to situations involving Switzerland and the UK and must therefore be disregarded as a basis for recognition. As the provisional measure requested in the claim was ultimately granted on a different legal basis, the decision was not challenged.

It is respectfully submitted that the decision is ill-founded. The intertemporal provisions in the Convention are way more complex than the district court’s reasoning acknowledges.

The relevant Article 63(1) of the Convention (transitional provisions) reads as follows:

This Convention shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to documents formally drawn up or registered as authentic instruments after its entry into force in the State of origin and, where recognition or enforcement of a judgment or authentic instruments is sought, in the State addressed.

The district court’s decision makes no reference to that article or to doctrine but refers to different views expressed by Swiss governmental bodies: one by the Federal Office of Justice (FOJ), and one by the Federal Office of Foreign Affairs (FOFA). While the first clearly (and accurately…) states that “[t]he recognition and declaration of enforceability of judgments made before the withdrawal date shall continue to be governed by the Lugano Convention even after the date of withdrawal”, the latter states that “the Lugano Convention will cease to form the legal basis for Swiss–UK relations, at least temporarily. As a result, matters of jurisdiction and declarations of the enforceability of judgments between Switzerland and the UK will, in principle, once again be governed by national legislation”. While the term “in principle” would seem to leave some room for nuance, the district court of Zurich opted to openly dismiss the FOJ opinion and embrace the “no legal basis”-assertion of the FOFA.

Under Article 63(1), the relevant elements are that (1) the Convention was in force in the State where the decision to be recognized was issued (or even already when the proceedings were instituted? see below), and (2) the Convention was in force in the State of the recognition at the time recognition was sought. This was clearly the case in the situation at hand. The district court of Zurich erred in not applying this provision.

From a strictly grammatical point of view, one could read Article 63(1) as covering only the situation where the Convention is applicable in both States at the time of recognition. However, such hypothesis would not even raise an intertemporal question and Article 63(1) would be completely pointless. This cannot be assumed as the drafter’s will. It would also contravene general principles on acquired rights and favorem recognitionis.

Missing the Really Tricky Questions

It is submitted that this first decision is a bad start into a true marathon of (really) tricky issues around Brexit and the Lugano Convention.

One of those questions is whether Article 63(1) requires the proceedings in the UK to be final (in order to be recognized in Switzerland later), or if it is sufficient that the proceedings have been “initiated” – opening the way for enforcing decisions issued even after 1 January 2021. In my opinion, this is consistent with the purpose of Article 63(2), which is to enforce decision under transitional rules once it is clear that the originating court has applied the Lugano provisions on direct competence. Views are also split on this (see Fn 3 of the FOJ decision here), but at least this would be the right debate to have.

The Return of the Undead: Applicability of the 1988 Lugano Convention?

The second question is whether, assuming the 2007 Lugano Convention were not to be applicable, its predecessor, the Lugano Convention of 1988, would apply.

The 1988 Lugano Convention was “superseded” by the 2007 Lugano Convention (no further acts of rescission were agreed between the parties) by virtue of article 65 of that Convention. As the latter would cease to be applicable, that could automatically lead to the 1998 Lugano Convention being applicable again. The 1988 Lugano Convention is not cited in Annex VII of the 2007 Lugano Convention (Agreements “superseded” by the 2007 Lugano Convention under its article 65). And the 1988 Lugano Convention has been and is still applied to the French and Netherlands overseas territories (not being EU territories).

However, this view is contested. In Switzerland, which follows the monist approach to treaties, courts should, in my opinion, apply the 1988 Lugano Convention again. However, since the UK follows the dualist approach, one must also consider its national law and the fact that Article 3A of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, giving force to the 1988 Lugano Convention, has since been repealed. Whether this outweighs the principles of the Vienna Convention the law of treaties (see on this argument in respect of the Brussels Convention the post by Serena Forlati) will be up to the courts – if asked. Unfortunately, also that opportunity was missed.

Surprisingly, I have not come across any view of UK lawyers (or lawmakers) defending the potential applicability of the 1988 Lugano Convention, although it would provide the UK with a far better “fallback position” than national laws in the case of a non-accession to the 2007 Lugano Convention. As this possibility seems more and more plausible (no agreement of the EU yet on the UK’s accession), it is a case worth making in the next recognition proceeding.

Melissa Durkee (University of Georgia School of Law) has posted Interpretive Entrepreneurs on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

Private actors interpret legal norms, a phenomenon I call “interpretive entrepreneurship.” The phenomenon is particularly significant in the international context, where many disputes are not subject to judicial resolution, and there is no official system of precedent. Interpretation can affect the meaning of laws over time. For this reason, it can be a form of “post hoc” international lawmaking, worth studying alongside other forms of international lobbying and norm entrepreneurship by private actors. The Article identifies and describes the phenomenon through a series of case studies that show how, why, and by whom it unfolds. The examples focus on entrepreneurial activity by business actors and cast a wide net, examining aircraft finance, space mining, modern slavery, and investment law. As a matter of theory, this process-based account suggests that international legal interpretation involves contests for meaning among diverse groups of actors, giving credence to critical and constructivist views of international legal interpretation. As a practical matter, the case studies show that interpretive entrepreneurship is an influence tool and a driver of legal change.

The paper is forthcoming in the Virginia Law Review.

The author of this post is Priskila P. Penasthika, Ph.D. Researcher, Erasmus School of Law, and Lecturer in Private International Law at Universitas Indonesia.

For almost ten years I have been closely observing the discussions taking place between Indonesia and The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) on the matter of Indonesia becoming a contracting state to the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention. This endeavor has finally materialized at the beginning of 2021 when Indonesia decided to accede to The Hague Apostille Convention. The instrument of accession – Presidential Regulation Number 2 of 2021 – was signed by President Joko Widodo on 4 January 2021, and issued on 5 January 2021.

Entrance into Application of the Hague Apostille Convention

Although the Presidential Regulation required at national level to seal the accession has been signed and published, this good news will not lead to an immediate application of the Hague Apostille Convention in Indonesia. It will take some more months before this Convention enters into force for Indonesia. The latest update informs that the instrument of accession is at the moment being recorded in the Indonesian state gazette to comply with the enactment and publication requirement of a presidential regulation according to the Indonesian law. After the completion of this process, according to Articles 12 and 15 of the Convention, the instrument of accession needs to be deposited with the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Netherlands. Subsequently, there will be six months period for the other contracting states to the Convention to raise any objection to the Indonesian accession to the Convention. The 1961 Hague Apostille Convention will enter into force between Indonesia and the contracting states which have raised no objection to its accession on the sixtieth day after the expiry of the six months period. Even if this last part of the process is expected to run smoothly, it is likely that the interested parties will have to wait until the end of 2021 for the Convention to become applicable for Indonesia.

Present Process of Legalization of Indonesian Documents to Be Used Abroad

The accession to this Convention brings good news for many interested parties because the current legalization process for public documents in Indonesia is a lengthy, complicated, time-consuming, and a costly procedure.

As an illustration and based on my personal experience, there are at least four different institutions in Indonesia involved in the legalization process. We can take the example of an Indonesian birth certificate that would need to be used before a foreign authority. The first step in this process would be the legalization by the Indonesian Civil Registry Office that issues the document. Then, a second legalization is performed by the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia. This is to be followed by a subsequent legalization by the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia. Lastly, the birth certificate should also be legalized by the Embassy or the Representative Office in Indonesia of the foreign country in which the birth certificate is to be used. After all these steps, the birth certificate can finally be used in the designated foreign jurisdiction.

Changes the Convention Will Bring in the Process of Legalization of Documents

By the accession of the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention, the above lengthy procedure will be limited to one step and will involve only one institution – the designated Competent Authority in Indonesia. Although, there is not yet an official announcement about which institution will be appointed as the Indonesian Competent Authority, it is very likely that the Ministry of Law and Human Rights of the Republic of Indonesia will be entrusted with the task.

Limitations Made to the Application of the Hague Apostille Convention

When it comes to its accession to the Hague Apostille Convention, Indonesia made a reserve declaration to exclude from the definition of public documents (Article 1(a) of the Convention) the documents issued by the Prosecutor Office of Indonesia.

Additional Significance of the Accession to the Hague Apostille Convention

Beyond facilitating and speeding up the process of recognition of documents, the decision to join the 1961 Hague Apostille Convention represents an important step for Indonesia.

The 1961 Hague Apostille Convention is the first HCCH’s convention that Indonesia accedes to. Given the fact that Indonesia is not yet a member to the HCCH, the accession to the Hague Apostille Convention will mark the first official connection Indonesia has with the organization. It is anticipated that this will lead to more accessions to the HCCH’s conventions by Indonesia in the coming future.

The other significance of this accession is related to the Visi Indonesia 2045 (Vision of Indonesia 2045). The Government of Indonesia has launched this Vision to commemorate the centenary of the Indonesian independence which will take place in 2045. This Vision aims to portray Indonesia as a strong sovereign, developed, fair, and prosperous country. To achieve this, one of the targets is to simplify procedures in order to boost public service, international cooperation and investment. A simplified legalisation procedure for public documents is thus a strategy that would contribute to an easiness of doing business, and eventually for the accomplishment of the Vision of Indonesia 2045’s targets.

A more in-depth analysis (in Indonesian) explaining the current legalization process in Indonesia and the urgency to accede to The Hague Apostille Convention 1961 can be accessed here.

On 11 November 2020, the Court of justice issued a judgment on jurisdiction under Brussels I bis Regulation in respect of a dispute on the use of immovable property subject to co-ownership (Case C-433/19, Ellmes Property Services, already reported here and here). Both article 24, point 1, on rights in rem matters and article 7, point 1, a) on contractual matters were submitted to the interpretation of the Court.

Regarding the first provision, the Court leads a classical and very brief analysis of the jurisdictional rule, leaning on the national judge to implement it in casu. On the contrary, the interpretation of the second provision deviates from the settled caselaw and the Court is more prescriptive towards the referring judge.

All in all, the reading of the judgment gives an impression of inconsistency and unfinished work.

Facts and Issues at Stake

 A British company is co-owner of an apartment in Austria, which is designated for residential purposes. However, it was using that apartment for touristic purposes by regularly renting it out to holidaymakers. Another co-owner, SP, sought the cessation of that “touristic use” on the ground that it is contrary to the designated use of that building and, therefore, it interferes with his right of co-ownership.

The question of international jurisdiction arose. SP seized the Austrian court following the exclusive jurisdiction provided for in article 24, point 1, of Brussels I bis Regulation, in favour of the court of the Member State in which the property is situated. The British company contested the jurisdiction of that court on the basis of the forum contractus, pursuant to article 7, point 1, a). For the referring court, both grounds of jurisdiction could be admissible under Austrian civil law. Therefore, the Court of justice ruled on both provisions.

Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to Rights in rem in Immovable Property: A Self-restraint Approach? Reasoning

The Court of justice first assessed whether the action brought by the co-owner against the British company was to be characterised as an action “in matters relating to rights in rem in immovable property” pursuant to article 24, point 1 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. This requires, in particular, that the action is based on a right in rem and not on a right in personam (see the CJEU judgment in Reitbauern, para. 45). A right in rem, existing in corporeal property, has effect erga omnes. The tricky point here was to determine whether the designated use of the building produces such effect. Is the co-owner entitled to oppose the residential purposes of his property beyond the co-ownership agreement, to third parties? For the Court of justice, it falls to the referring court to respond to this question, following its national legal framework. Therefore, the application in casu of article 24, point 1, remains unsure.

Assessment

Eventually, the national judge would have been in the same position without referring any question to the Court of justice, since its interpretation adds nothing to the settled caselaw in the field. The Advocate General Szpunar went much further in its opinion, clearly doubting of the application of this exclusive ground of jurisdiction. He stressed that “there was a considerable underlying interest at stake in the EU legislature’s decision to make the jurisdiction established by that article [24 point 1] exclusive in nature”, namely “a public interest”. It is characterised when “rights [are] capable of affecting the legal situation of any person (effect erga omnes) or of the public in general” (para. 62). No such public interest seems to be at stake here, as far as “adherence to contractual arrangements between co-owners relating to the designated use of an immovable property” is concerned (para. 68); this is a pure contractual issue, subject to private autonomy.

In that respect, despite the remaining divergence of national civil and property laws within the Member States, it was possible to give the domestic court a clearer guidance. Then I wonder why the Court of justice decided not to be more explicit in its interpretation. Did the Court exercise self-restraint to preserve national private laws? Numerous Member States are indeed still hostile to the European harmonisation in the field. If it is the Court’s motive, it is unfortunate. On the contrary, it seems necessary to reflect on what extent an approximation of core notions of private law within the EU could improve the uniform application of European PIL rules. This reflection is the natural follow-up of the “autonomous interpretation” based on EU law developed and applied by the Court of justice, including in the field of EU PIL.

Jurisdiction in Matters Relating to a Contract: A Return to Orthodoxy? Reasoning

Given the uncertainty of application of the exclusive jurisdiction provided for in article 24, point 1, the Court of justice also interpreted article 7, point 1, on contractual matters. The Court started to recall the great flexibility of the notion of “contractual matters”. By analogy with its judgment in Kerr, it held that “the co-owners are, on account of the co-ownership agreement, in a contractual relationship freely consented to” (para. 40). Therefore, the action brought by the co-owner against the British company, itself co-owner, is an action “in matters relating to a contract”.

Then, the Court implemented the complex connecting factor laid down in article 7, point 1, a) – since the special rules in respect of the contracts on sale of goods and the contracts regarding the provision of services did not apply here, i.e. the presumptions regarding the place of performance –. Remarkably, the Court of justice removed the classical conflict-of-laws reasoning inherited from its judgment in Tessili (contrary to the Advocate General Szpunar in his opinion, para. 83 in fine). Following this settled caselaw, if the parties did not agree on the place of performance, that place must be determined by the law governing the contract in question pursuant to the PIL rules of the forum.

However, the Court of justice decided here to locate “directly” the place of performance, without the intermediary of the applicable law to the contract. The obligation in question is the guarantee of a “peaceful enjoyment of the property subject to co-ownership” by the owner and “must be performed in the place in which it is situated” (para. 44), i.e. in Austria.

Assessment

This solution makes the application of article 7, point 1), a), much easier in practice. The “direct” reasoning followed by the Court of justice leads to a substantial designation of the competent jurisdiction, here the Austrian judge. The two-steps reasoning, i.e. the implementation of a conflict-of-laws rule in order to apply a jurisdictional rule, has always been criticized by a large majority of scholars. It is indeed unorthodox regarding the classical PIL methodology. Issue of competence is, in principle, independent from the solution of conflict-of-laws.

The law designated by the choice of law rules has generally to be determined under the Rome I Regulation, except if the contract in question was concluded before the entering into force of this text. It seemed to be the case here (see par. 84 of the opinion, and even before the entering into force of the 1980 Rome Convention), imposing the referring court to apply its previous national choice of law rules in contractual matters. This further difficulty was probably an additional incentive for the Court to remove the Tessili reasoning.

This “streamlined” interpretation was already followed by the Court, a few years ago, in a case related to the avoidance of a contract of gift of immovable property (see the CJEU judgment in Schmidt, para. 39). However, in both judgements, the Court of justice did not bother to mention the change of approach. This is unfortunate as it makes difficult to assess the scope of the solution.

It is, most probably, only an exception in the context of immovable property, based on its strong attraction on the place where the property is situated and on the resulting proximity with the forum. In that sense, the Court of justice has stated that this solution “meets the objective of predictability of the rules of jurisdiction laid down by Regulation n° 1215/2012 since a co-owner bound by a co-ownership agreement stipulating such a designated use may, when he or she arbitrarily and unilaterally changes that designated use, reasonably expect to be sued in the courts of the place where the immovable property concerned is situated” (para. 45).

However, the “simplification” of application of article 7, point 1), a), stays unclear. The Court of justice mentions that the obligation in question “relates to the actual use of such property” (para. 44 in fine). Following an a contrario reading, would the “direct” location of the place of performance still be the solution if the obligation relates to an abstract use of property? (in that sense, see here). And how to understand and to draw the line between actual and abstract use of property?

Finally, it seems that a same “direct” approach was recently followed by the Court in the field of prorogation of jurisdiction. In its judgment in DealyFix (reported here on this blog), where the enforceability of a choice of court agreement to a third party was at stake, the Court held that it can be enforced only if, under the (substantive) legislation of the Member State whose courts are designated in that clause, the enforceability is allowed. The Court of justice did not refer to the “rules of private international law of the court” designated in the agreement, as it did before in its judgment in CDC (see para. 65, regarding the “court seised of the matter”). By analogy, the same “renvoi” to PIL rules is laid down in article 25, §1 and recital 20 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in case of alleged substantive invalidity of a choice-of-court agreement; the question shall be decided “in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court […] including the conflict-of-laws rules of that Member State”.

I wonder whether it could illustrate a latent tendency of the Court of justice to avoid the overriding conflict-of-laws reasoning, in favour of a direct application of the jurisdictional rules concerned. Such a “material approach” is convincing, but one could call the Court to be more explicit in its judicial policy. It would make its interpretation more convincing and effective.

In a judgment of 27 January 2021, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) indicated its willingness to apply strictly the definition of provisional measures developed by the European Court of Justice in Reichert, Van Uden and Saint Paul Dairy Industries. Three years earlier, the Cour de cassation had ignored the limits sets by these rulings and extended the jurisdiction of French courts to order evidentiary measures beyond purely protective measures.

Background

The case was concerned with a contractual dispute between a French and a German company in the film industry. The contracts provided for the jurisdiction of German courts. As the German company wondered whether several French companies had commited the budget agreed upon by the parties to the production of a film and a series, it applied ex parte to a French commercial court for the appointment of a judicial officer (huissier de justice) with the task of conducting “computer investigation” and “gathering data”.

Picture: Neal Davis

The judgment is short on the description of the measure, but it seems that the huissier was supposed to enter the premises of the French companies and collect data from their computer.

The French companies challenged the jurisdiction of the French court to grant such a measure.

Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation

Because of the jurisdiction clauses, French courts lacked jurisdiction on the merits. Their jurisdiction could only be grounded in Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. However, in order to avoid that parties bypass the jurisdiction of the chosen court (or any other court having jurisdiction on the merits), the ECJ has limited the scope of this provision to protective measures. As is well known, the ECJ has consistently defined ‘provisional, including protective measures’ in the meaning of this provision as:

referring to measures which, in matters within the scope of the Convention/Regulation, are intended to preserve a factual or legal situation so as to safeguard rights the recognition of which is otherwise sought from the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the case.

The concept, thus, is limited to measures which ‘preserve a situation’. Despite the title of Article 35, they actually only include protective measures. This narrow definition was codified in Recital 25 of the preamble of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which codified Saint Paul Dairy Industries in the following terms:

The notion of provisional, including protective, measures (…) should not include measures which are not of a protective nature, such as measures ordering the hearing of a witness.

Which Purpose?

The critical issue was thus to define the purpose of the requested measure.

The lower court had found that the aim of the measure was to prepare the proceedings on the merits by gathering information. It had thus ruled that the requested measure was not protective, as it did not aim at preserving any legal or factual situation. It had also held that the measure was not provisional either, as the provision of the information could not be undone.

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal. It ruled that the reasons of the lower court were too general, and that it should have explored whether the requested measure did not also aim at preserving evidence.

Assessment

In 2018, the French Supreme Court had allowed the appointment of judicial experts for the purpose of conducting investigations in France and establishing facts without any assessment of whether there was any need to preserve a situation. As foreign courts had jurisdiction on the merits, these judgments were arguably non compliant with the case law of the CJEU defining the scope of Article 35. It seems that these decisions have now been overruled, and rightly so.

On 17 September 2020 the Court of Justice of the EU issued a judgement in the case of WV v Landkreis Harburg (C-540/19) concerning the interpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the EU Maintenance Regulation, in particular its Article 3(b). An opinion in this case was prepared by AG Sánchez-Bardona.

Factual Background

WV’s mother lived in a residential care home for the elderly in Germany. In accordance with § 1601 of the German Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch, WV, the son, was required to provide maintenance to his mother. However, he failed to do so. As the mother did not have adequate means to cover expenses, she received, under the German Sozialgesetzbuch, social assistance from a public body – the Landkreis Harburg. Pursuant to § 94(1) Sozialgesetzbuch, maintenance claims are by way of statutory subrogation transferred to the public body providing social assistance. Relying on this provision, the Landkreis Harburg lodged an application with the Amtsgericht Köln (Germany) claiming from WV the payment of maintenance arrears and regular maintenance for the future.

WV submitted that German courts lack jurisdiction. The lower instance court shared this view, noting that, according to Article 3(b) of the Maintenance Regulation, jurisdiction lies with the court for the place where the creditor is habitually resident. At the same time the concept of “creditor” is defined in Article 2(1)(10) of this Regulation as meaning “any individual to whom maintenance is owed or is alleged to be owed”. Hence, only the creditor personally can make use of the ground listed in Article 3(b). The dispute reached the Bundesgerichtshof, which referred a preliminary question to the CJEU.

Previous Jurisprudence of the CJEU

As reminded in the opinion and in the judgement, the Brussels Convention and Brussels I Regulation included jurisdictional rules for maintenance claims (until Maintenance Regulation has started to be applied on 18 June 2011). Pursuant to these rules, jurisdiction lies with the courts of the defendant’s domicile (based on general rule – Article 2 Convention; Article 4 Regulation) and with the courts for the place where the maintenance creditor is domiciled or habitually resident (Article (5)(2) of both acts).

The CJEU ruled on the interpretation of Article (5)(2) of the Convention in Blijdenstein (C- 433/01), a case similar, as to its factual background, to the one considered in Landkreis Harburg. The Court stated in Blijdenstein that Article 5(2)

cannot be relied on by a public body which seeks, in an action for recovery, reimbursement of sums paid under public law by way of an education grant to a maintenance creditor, to whose rights it is subrogated against the maintenance debtor.

The CJEU explained on that occasion that the general principle is that the courts of the State in which the defendant is domiciled are to have jurisdiction “and that rules of jurisdiction which derogate from this general principle cannot give rise to an interpretation going beyond the cases expressly envisaged.” (24)

The “derogation provided for in Article 5(2) of the Convention is intended to offer the maintenance applicant, who is regarded as the weaker party in such proceedings, an alternative basis of jurisdiction (…) that specific objective had to prevail over the objective of the rule contained in the first paragraph of Article 2 of the Convention, which is to protect the defendant as the party who, being the person sued, is generally in a weaker position.” (29).

Then, it submitted that “a public body which brings an action for recovery against a maintenance debtor is not in an inferior position with regard to the latter. Moreover, the maintenance creditor, whose maintenance has been covered by the payments of the public body, is no longer in a precarious financial position.” (30) Additionally, “the courts of the defendant are better placed to determine the latter’s resources.” (31)

AG’s Opinion Arguing the Need to Depart from Blijdenstein

The AG’s Opinion submitted numerous reasons for which the CJEU should depart from Blijdenstein. The AG underlined the differences between Brussels Convention and Maintenance Regulation, analyzed the CJUE’s “new” jurisprudence relating to the latter (namely: Sanders and Huber, C-400/13; V, C-499/15; R, C-468/18), in particular as regards the regulation’s overarching principles, like protection of maintenance creditors or the effective recovery of maintenance claims in cross-border situations. Additionally, with reference to the Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, the advantages of the coincidence between ius and forum were sketched.

Departure from Blijdenstein and its Justification

The CJEU shared the views of the AG and departed from Blijdenstein jurisprudence. In practical terms, it means that public bodies like Landkreis Harburg might file claims against maintenance debtors at the place of maintenance creditor’s habitual residence, which in most instances would coincide with their own.

The CJEU underlined that Article 3 of the Maintenance Regulation:

contains neither a general principle, such as jurisdiction of the court for the defendant’s domicile, nor derogating rules which would have to be interpreted strictly (…) but rather a number of criteria which are equal and alternative (…). (29)

and

does not specify that the claim must be brought by the maintenance creditor himself or herself before the courts identified in paragraphs (a) and (b) [and therefore does not] preclude a claim relating to a maintenance obligation from being brought by a public body, to which the claims of that creditor have been transferred by way of statutory subrogation, before one or the other of those courts. (31)

Consistent with the opinion, the CJEU also pointed to the fact that the Maintenance Regulation, as opposed to Brussels Convention and the Brussels I Regulation, does apply no matter domicile or habitual residence of the defendant. Hence:

refusing to allow a public body subrogated to the claims of a creditor to bring an action before the courts where that creditor is habitually resident in circumstances where the maintenance debtor is domiciled in a third State is most likely tantamount to requiring that public body to bring its action outside the European Union. (35)

This would result in legal and practical difficulties, which go against the objective of the effective recovery of maintenance claims.

The CJEU convincingly added that:

The transfer of the maintenance creditor’s claims to such a public body impairs neither the interests of the maintenance debtor nor the predictability of the applicable rules of jurisdiction; that debtor must, in any event, expect to be sued either before the court for the place where he or she is habitually resident or before the courts for the place where that creditor is habitually resident. (38)

The CJEU also referred to Hague Protocol, underling that its Article 10 provides that the right of a public body to seek reimbursement of a benefit provided to the creditor in place of maintenance is governed by the law to which that body is subject. This:

ensures, in the vast majority of cases – which are those in which the seat of the public body and the habitual residence of the creditor are in the same Member State – a parallel between the rules on jurisdiction and those concerning the applicable substantive law. (43)

According to a press release of the Spanish Constitutional Court, on 23 February 2021 the Plenary has partially ruled in favor of the Government of Catalonia (the Generalidad de Cataluña/Generalitat de Catalunya) and, consequently, declared unconstitutional part of the provisions of the Spanish Regulation on International Adoption approved by Royal Decree 165/2019 of 22 March 2019, implementing Law 54/2007 of 28 December 2007 on International Adoption.

Before the Constitutional Court, the Generalidad claimed that the Regulation infringed its statutory powers in the field of social services and the protection of minors. The Court has ruled that the State has indeed encroached on the powers of the Autonomous Communities in that field, in its international dimension. The reason is that the Regulation goes too much into the detail of the legal status of ‘accredited bodies’ and has entirely centralised, without recourse to cooperation mechanisms, a number of executive tasks such as the recognition, suspension and revocation of the accreditation of intermediary bodies, as well as the monitoring and control of the activity and some tasks related to the national registering of accredited bodies.

On the other hand, according to the Court, the State, in so far as it has jurisdiction over international relations, may conclude bilateral agreements to promote reciprocal relations with other States; establish the list of countries excluded from the regime of international adoption due to war, disaster and other serious reasons; and suspend as a precautionary measure adoptions in progress for these reasons.

Similarly, the State may entrust executive tasks corresponding to the regional institutions to a Sector  Conference such as the Delegate Committee on Social Services, composed of representatives of all the autonomous communities and cities. The Committee decides by consensus and, failing that, by majority, on the maximum number of international adoption files to be dealt with each year in relation to each country, and on their distribution between the Autonomous Communities and the accredited bodies. It also decides on the approval of the basic model contract for international adoptions.

In order to protect the best interests of minors, and having in mind as well the rights of the adopters, the effect of the judgement has been put off for one year from its publication. In this way, an immediate legislative vacuum adversely affecting minors -in particular those involved in international adoption proceedings initiated prior to the decision- is prevented. Additionally, the declarations of unconstitutionality and nullity contained in the decision ‘shall not affect consolidated legal situations such as those established by final administrative measures, or those which have been decided by a judgment having the force of res judicata’.

The ruling is accompanied by a dissenting vote from two Justices. In their view, the application should have been dismissed in its entirety since the Generalidad does not have the competence it claims – hence there is no possible trespassing on the side of the State. According to the magistrates, the Generalidad has no power to intervene in the extra-judicial phase of an international adoption taking place abroad. By contrast, it has competence for the protection of children who are in distress or at risk ; however, neither minors in other Autonomous Communities nor those in another State fall under its scope, even if they may be adopted by Catalans. The principle of territoriality makes it impossible to acknowledge Catalonia’s competence to protect minors residing abroad. Furthermore, adoptable minors abroad are not in a situation of risk or distress, since they reside in institutions who look after them.

All in all, a complicated political setting. Difficult to assess whether, in practice, it works in favor or against the main stakeholders : the children, the adopters, the families.

Charlemagne Dagbedji (University of Corsica) organises a webinar (in French) titled “Effective Recognition of Non-Judicial Divorce” (L’efficacité internationale du divorce sans juge).

The webinar aims at assessing the international legal acquis on non-judicial divorce, with a special focus on the means to ensure its cross-border recognition. It requires to analyse private international law rules but also to adopt a comparative law approach and a practical perspective.

It will take place on 25 March 2021, 2 to 4 PM (CET).

The speakers are André Giudicelli (University of Corsica), Alex Tani (University of Corsica), Alain Devers (University of Lyon 3 & Lawyer at the Lyon Bar), Charlemagne Dagbedji (University of Corsica) and Sonia Ben Hadj Yahia (University of Corsica).

Program and registration here.

On 24 February 2021 the Court of Justice of the EU issued a judgement in the case BU v Markt24 GmbH (C-804/19) following a request for a preliminary ruling from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria). The case concerns jurisdictional rules for employment contracts in Brussels I bis Regulation, in particular its Article 21. The opinion in this case was prepared by AG Øe.

Background

BU whose place of residence is in Salzburg (Austria) signed the employment contract for carrying out cleaning work in Munich (Germany) for Markt24 GmbH, whose registered office is also located in Munich. BU signed the contract with an employee acting as intermediary of Markt24. The contract was signed in a bakery in Salzburg, even though Markt24 had an office in this city at that time. It was agreed that BU would start working on 6 September 2017, but she was never allocated any work, even though she could be contacted by telephone and was prepared to work. BU has not received remuneration, but she was registered with the Austrian social security institution as an employee. On 15 December 2017, the defendant terminated the employment contract. On 27 April 2018, BU filed a claim to the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria) asking for outstanding wage and other payments for the period of her employment.

Since the documents initiating the action could not be served on the defendant, a procedural representative in absentia was appointed. The representative contested jurisdiction of the Austrian court. It seems that, in accordance with domestic law in place in Austria, namely § 4(1)(a) Arbeits- und Sozialgerichtsgesetz (“ASGG” – Law on the labour and social courts), Landesgericht Salzburg would have jurisdiction, based on the place of residence of the employee and also the place where the remuneration was to be paid. At the same time there were doubts whether jurisdiction exists under Brussels I bis Regulation, in particular its Article 21(1)(b)(i), which grants jurisdiction to courts for “the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work”. Landesgericht Salzburg decided to refer a preliminary ruling to the CJEU asking few alternative questions.

Is Section 5 of Chapter II Brussels I bis Applicable at All, If No Work Was Actually Performed?

The Court reminded that the concept of an “individual contract of employment” referred to in Brussels I bis Regulation must be given an autonomous interpretation (point 24). As flows from its previous jurisprudence, this concept “presupposes a relationship of subordination of the employee to the employer; the essential feature of an employment relationship is that for a certain period of time one person performs services for and under the direction of another in return for which he or she receives remuneration” (point 25). If the above conditions are met, parties are bound by a “contract of employment” within the meaning of the Regulation, “irrespective of whether the work which is the subject of that contract has been performed or not” (point 26).

Hence, the CJEU stated that Section 5 of Chapter II Brussels I bis (namely, its special jurisdictional rules for employment contracts) “must be interpreted as applying to a legal action brought by an employee domiciled in a Member State against an employer domiciled in another Member State in the case where the contract of employment was negotiated and entered into in the Member State in which the employee is domiciled and provided that the place of performance of the work was located in the Member State of the employer, even though that work was not performed for a reason attributable to that employer.”

Does Brussels I bis Allow for the Application of Domestic Rules on Jurisdiction If More Beneficial to the Employee?

As rightly underlined in the opinion, the fact that the rules of the ASGG are more favorable to the employee is irrelevant, as section 5 of Chapter II Brussels I bis does not provide for certain minimum standards of the protection of employees, which might be further developed by the national legislation (points 43-44 of the opinion). Instead, this Regulation provides for a unified system of jurisdictional rules. If a dispute falls within the scope of application of Brussels I bis, its rules of jurisdiction must take precedence over national ones (points 30-32 of the judgement). Hence, the CJEU ruled that the provisions set out in Section 5 of Chapter II Brussels I bis preclude the application of national rules of jurisdiction, irrespective of whether those rules are more beneficial to the employee.

How to Understand Article 21(1)(b)(i) Brussels I bis, If the Work Was Never Actually Performed?

As underlined in the opinion, the Court has never before had a chance to explain how to understand the concept of the “place where the employee habitually carries out his work”, in case no work was actually performed (point 23 of the opinion). The Court noted that this concept refers to “the place where, or from which, the employee in fact performs the essential part of his or her duties vis-à-vis his or her employer” (point 40). The Court shared also the view presented in the opinion that:

in the case where the contract of employment has not been performed, the intention expressed by the parties to the contract as to the place of that performance is, in principle, the only element which makes it possible to establish a habitual place of work (…) That interpretation best allows a high degree of predictability of rules of jurisdiction to be ensured, since the place of work envisaged by the parties in the contract of employment is, in principle, easy to identify (point 41).

The Court had no doubt that in the case at hand that place is Munich (Germany).

At the same time, the Court underlined that in accordance with Article 20 Brussels I bis Regulation, section 5 of its Chapter II applies without prejudice to, inter alia, Article 6 point 5, which provides that a person domiciled in a Member State may be sued in another Member State, “as regards a dispute arising out of the operations of a branch, agency or other establishment, in the courts for the place where the branch, agency or other establishment is situated”. The Court noted that Landesgericht Salzburg should determine whether that provision may also be applicable in the case given that Markt24 had an office in Salzburg at the beginning of the employment relationship.

CJEU stated that Article 21(1)(b)(i) of Brussels I bis must be interpreted as meaning that an action may be brought before the court of the place where or from where the employee was required, pursuant to the contract of employment, to discharge the essential part of his or her obligations towards the employer. This is however without prejudice to Article 7(5) of the Regulation.

Is Article 7(1) Brussels I bis Applicable to an Employment Relationship, If No Work Was Actually Performed?

One of the questions was not answered either in the opinion or in the judgement, as there was no doubt that Section 5 of the Chapter II Brussels I bis does apply to the case at hand. By this question Landesgericht Salzburg wanted to clarify whether Article 7(1) Brussels I bis might apply to the employment relationship, in such specific circumstances, when no work was actually performed and whether § 4(1)(a) or (d) of the ASGG could be applied. It is not clear whether the ASGG was supposed to be applied instead of Article 7 Brussels I bis or somehow indirectly by the intermediation of it.

Since 2018, UNIDROIT has been studying the prospect of working on the enforcement of claims.

In September 2020, it eventually established a Working Group on the Best Practices for Effective Enforcement. The Working group held its first meeting between 30 November and 2 December 2020, based on an Issues Paper.

The purpose of the project will be to adopt a soft instrument proposing solutions that States would be free to adopt (best practices followed by comments, on the model of the ELI-UNIDROIT Rules of civil procedure). It would focus on the enforcement process, and would not cover the process of obtaining a judgment against a defaulting party or the process of declaring enforceable foreign judgments in the forum. It would include the enforcement of provisonal and protective measures.

During the first meeting, the participants discussed a variety of issues, including the concept of enforcement, the types of claims that should be covered and the impact of technology. The Report of the meeting is available here.

The next meeting will be held in April 2021. Three sub-groups were established: Subgroup 1 on  “post-adjudication” enforcement; Subgroup 2 on enforcement of secured claims (collateral); Subgroup 3 on the impact of technology on enforcement.

As noted earlier on this blog, on 5 March 2021, from 5 to 6.30 p.m. (CET), the European Association of Private International Law will host its third (Virtual) Seminar, devoted to the digitalization aspects of the revised Service of process and Taking of evidence Regulations.

Those wishing to attend have time until 3 March 2021 at noon to register. The registration form is available here.

Registered participants will receive the details to join the Seminar by e-mail the day before the Seminar (please note the e-mails with these details occasionally end up in the spam folder).

For more information, please write an e-mail to Apostolos Anthimos at apostolos.anthimos@gmail.com.