EAPIL blog

In February 2019, Michael G. Faure (Maastricht University and Erasmus Law School Rotterdam) and Kévine Kindji (Maastricht University) presented to the European Parliament a Study on Cross-border nuclear safety, liability and cooperation in the European Union.

The abstract reads:

This study, commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the PETI Committee, aims at gaining deeper insights into the legal aspects of cross border nuclear safety and cooperation in the European Union. It analyses the legal framework of nuclear safety as well as the liability and insurance schemes for nuclear accidents. The study examines the current liability and insurance framework and formulates possibilities for a further involvement of the EU in the liability regime. Specific attention is paid to citizen and NGO involvement in decision-making concerning nuclear power plants. The study analyses the case law in that respect and formulates various recommendations to improve the regime concerning cross-border nuclear safety, liability and corporation in the EU.

The study can be freely downloaded here.

An e-mail has been sent to those who registered for the second EAPIL Virtual Seminar, on Digital Teaching and Private International Law, scheduled to take place on 27 January 2021 from 5 to 7 p.m. (MET), with the details to join the seminar, via Zoom.

If you have registered, and don’t see our e-mail in your inbox, please check the spam folder.

For further queries, please refer to Susanne Gössl at sgoessl@law.uni-kiel.de.

For the first time since the entry into force of the 1968 Brussels Convention and the EU Regulations in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the Greek Supreme Court was called recently to examine an application for recognition and enforcement of an English order awarding alimony to a wife, while at the same time regulating property issues between the spouses.

On 12 June 2020, the Supreme Court [Nr. 662/2020] ordered the reversal of the appellate judgment [Athens Court of Appeal 4789/2018, unreported], which in turn had rejected the husband’s appeal against the first instance decision granting the recognition and declaration of enforceability of the English order [Athens court of 1st Instance 420/2015, unreported].

The case at hand concerned an order of the Family Division of the High Court, which was issued upon the request of the wife in the course of divorce proceedings. In particular, the wife requested that she retain the ownership of the family house in London, and that she be granted the amount of ₤ 600.000 as a capitalised maintenance payment, plus 100% of the interests from a Merchant Investors assurance program, whereas the husband would retain the ownership of eight parcels of land in Greece.

The English court granted the request. The judge ruled as follows:

I consider that the wife’s need could be met by an even distribution of the assets listed in the KT list [i.e. the list prepared by the wife’s lawyer] and I therefore intend to issue a financial provision order in the form of a lump sum of 600,000 ₤ payable to the wife…  I am satisfied that the order I issue achieves the purpose of a fair distribution of assets between the parties.

The order to pay the lump sum raised an interesting issue of characterisation with far reaching consequences. It could either be regarded as a maintenance payment, or as distribution of the assets of the spouses, and thus related to their matrimonial property regime.

One of the consequences of the distinction is that separate legal regimes govern the enforcement of maintenance and matrimonial property judgments. Two different regulations apply: either the Maintenance Regulation, which provides for immediate enforcement (abolition of exequatur: Articles 17 et seq.), or the Matrimonial Property Regulation which has retained the ‘traditional’ requirement of a declaration of enforceability (Articles 36 et seq.). In this case, the application was filed prior to the entry into force of both regulations, but separate regimes already applied to each category. The Brussels I Regulation applied to maintenance, resulting in the simplified procedure of articles 38 et seq. Matrimonial property fell outside of the EU framework, and was thus governed by the common law of foreign judgments of the Member States (in Greece, Articles 323 & 905 of the Code of Civil Procedure), i.e. a more conservative regime, which, in addition to the international jurisdiction barrier (Article 323 No. 2), has a different starting point, as it is not bound by the famous principle of mutual trust and free movement of judicial decisions between EU Member States.

The Greek Supreme Court made the following characterisation:

The award of this lump sum does not have a supportive purpose; it does not seek to meet the basic needs of the applicant, so as to be considered a maintenance claim, but has a rather redistributive-compensatory purpose, leading to the distribution of assets between the spouses, as expressly stated in the reasoning of the foreign order.

In view of the above, the Supreme Court ruled that the dispute fell outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation, pursuant to the exception under article 1 (2) (a) [rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship]. It allowed the appeal, and referred the case for retrial to the appellate court.

The Supreme court cited in support of its decision three judgments of the European Court of Justice, C-143/78, De Cavel, C-25/81, C.H.W. and C- 220/95, van den Boogaard. In van den Boogaard, the ECJ ruled:

a decision rendered in divorce proceedings ordering payment of a lump sum and transfer of ownership in certain property by one party to his or her former spouse must be regarded as relating to maintenance and therefore as falling within the scope of the Brussels Convention if its purpose is to ensure the former spouse’s maintenance.

Courts and scholars in other Member States have already  pointed out that the van den Boogaard ruling did not resolve the issue entirely, granting a margin of discretion to national judges.

A search of similar situations and their treatment by national courts of other Member States leads us to a ruling of the German Supreme Court from 2009 [BGH 12.08.2009, NJW-RR 2010, pp. 1 f = IPRax 2011, pp. 187 f]. Confronted with similar facts, the Bundesgerichtshof opted for a solution akin to the Judgment of Solomon: departing from the characterization of the case, it accentuated the dual function of the provision [Doppelfunktionalität der Vorschrift], and granted the request for recognition and declaration of enforceability of the part demonstrating qualitative features of a maintenance claim. Respectively, for the remaining part of the order, it proceeded in the fashion chosen by the Greek Supreme Court.

On the other hand, English scholarship tends to include similar cases under the category of maintenance claims, drawing an additional argument from Annexes I-IV of Reg. 4/2009, while at the same time taking into account the case law of the CJEU, and the possibility of separation, as opted by the German Supreme Court.

In a recent decision, the Swiss Court of Cassation overturned a decision which ruled that the Lugano Convention did not apply to an English Financial Remedy Order, and referred the case to the Zurich Supreme Court for resolving the crucial issue of distinction between maintenance and matrimonial property disputes. A comment on the ruling is available here

The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU does not undermine the importance of the Greek Supreme Court ruling for the future. The intentions of the English legislator are not yet revealed. As  is already widely known, a primary indication does not exist, given that the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters has been left outside the Agreement. The expected accession of the UK to the Lugano Convention has been recorded ad calendas Graecas. However, a specific instrument will continue to govern the enforcement of maintenance judgments. The Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance will substitute EU law in the relations between the UK and Greece. A change of course by the Greek Supreme Court is highly unlikely, however, and financial provision orders will be subject to domestic rules of recognition and enforcement.

It should also be underscored that the issue is not unique to the United Kingdom. Similar systems are to be found in the legislation of other Member States [e.g. the Republic of Ireland, and partly France]. Therefore, fresh applications are not to be ruled out. Prospective applicants are however advised to prepare the file more diligently: English orders are issued on the basis of a judgment. It is therefore considered necessary to produce a translated true copy of the foreign judgment, so that the judge is able to understand the peculiarities of the foreign system, and to decide upon having seen the whole picture in advance.

Private International Law in Poland has been recently released by Wolters Kluwer. The monograph is written by Ewa Kamarad and Anna Wysocka-Bar (one of this blog’s editors), both affiliated with Jagiellonian University (Poland).

The e-version of the monograph forms part of the International Encyclopaedia of Laws, the volume on Private International Law edited by Bea Verschraegen, available online (for subscribers, for example via Peace Palace Library e-resources).

Private international law rules in Poland are unified at the EU level to a great extent. However, this unification leaves certain areas to domestic PIL or international agreements, including numerous bilateral ones in force in Poland (for example, law applicable to rights in rem or recognition and enforcement of judgements coming from outside the EU). Additionally, certain areas are unified in the EU within the enhanced cooperation mechanism which means that not all EU Member States apply them (for example, law applicable to divorce, jurisdiction, applicable law, as well as recognition and enforcement of EU judgements in matrimonial property matters). Poland is an example of a Member State, which is not participating in this cooperation and continues to apply its own rules. Due to the above the book might be of interest to international public, academics and practitioners, as it constitutes a general sketch of the whole system of PIL in Poland.

On 30 September 2020, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued a remarkable decision in the field of French international arbitration (Cass. Civ. 1st Chamber, 30 September 2020, no. 18-19.241).

The Court held that the power of the arbitral tribunal to determine its own jurisdiction based on Articles 1448 and 1506 of the French Civil Procedural Code shall not infringe consumers’ rights conferred by EU law. Therefore, an arbitration clause that is at odds with the requirements resulting form Directive 1993/13 concerning unfair terms in consumer contracts should be set aside by the courts.

For those who are familiar with EU consumer law, the added-value of the decision may seem limited. Indeed, more than ten years ago, the European Court of justice ruled that national courts shall invalidate an unfair arbitration clause included in a B2C contract, on the basis of directive 1993/13 (Mostaza Claro, C-168/05 and Asturcom Telecomunicaciones SL, C-40/08). But the cases dealt with actions to set aside the arbitral award (for the first one) or to enforce it (for the second one); this means at the “post-award” procedural stage. Here, the French case concerns the prior phase of arbitration.

A French national sought the advice of a Spanish law firm for the succession of her father, opened in Spain. Despite the international reputation of the law firm’s mother company, the French client was not satisfied with the legal services provided for and sued the Spanish law firm for damages before French court. The law firm opposed an arbitration clause included within the legal services contracts concluded with her French client and, in the alternative, challenged the international competence of the court.

In response, the Court of Appeal set aside the arbitration clause on the basis of the prohibition of unfair terms in B2C contracts pursuant to Directive 93/13 (Article 3(1)) because the clause had not been individually negotiated. Then, the Court of Appeal recognised its jurisdiction pursuant to the Brussels I bis Regulation (Article 17(1)(c) and Article 18(1)). The law firm appealed to the French Supreme Court.

The main issue at stake, under French international arbitration law, was the implementation of the cornerstone principle of “jurisdiction to decide jurisdiction” (principe compétence-compétence) laid down in Article 1448 of the French Civil Procedure Code and applicable to international arbitration pursuant to Article 1506 of the same Code.

This principle has a twofold dimension. On the first hand, in case of dispute on the validity of an arbitration agreement, the arbitral tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to assess its own jurisdiction. On the other hand, when such a dispute is brought before a court, such court shall decline jurisdiction. However, article 1448 provides for a narrow exception “if an arbitral tribunal has not yet been seized of the dispute and if the arbitration agreement is manifestly void or manifestly not applicable”.

Was the arbitration clause here “manifestly void”?

No, the law firm argued, as a comprehensive assessment by the Court of Appeal was needed to conclude to the unfair nature of the term. And this was indeed the position of the French Supreme Court so far, despite criticisms by the legal doctrine. In two famous cases, Jaguar (Cass. Civ., 1st Chamber, 21 May 1997) and Rado (Cass. Civ., 1st Chamber, 30 March 2004), related to B2C contracts, the French Supreme Court declined jurisdiction “in the absence of clear invalidity” of the arbitration clause and stated that the arbitral tribunal is entitled to apply any mandatory provisions commanded by the international public policy to assess its jurisdiction.

In the present case, the French Supreme Court overturns its jurisprudence and approves the decision of the Court of Appeal. However, the decision is taken outside the exception laid down in article 1448 (op. cit.). The solution is justified by the implementation of the “test of effectiveness” in the framework of the European principle of procedural autonomy. According to settled case-law of the Court of Justice:

“[…] in the absence of relevant Community rules, the detailed procedural rules designed to ensure the protection of the rights which individuals acquire under Community law are a matter for the domestic legal order of each Member State, under the principle of the procedural autonomy of the Member States, provided that they are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the Community legal order (principle of effectiveness)” (par. 24, Mostaza Claro, C-168/05).

As a consequence, the exclusive jurisdiction of arbitrators to assess the validity of an arbitration clause makes it more difficult for a claimant, in his/her capacity as European consumer, to benefit from his/her European rights, in particular in the present case the assessment of an arbitration clause under Directive 93/13. This is obviously a change of perspective, strongly documented by European case-law references in the ruling.

In the present case, the French Supreme Court extends the principle of effectiveness into the prior stage of international arbitration proceedings. The control of an alleged violation of a European mandatory requirement by an arbitration clause shall therefore be undertaken ex ante to ensure the effectiveness of EU law.

It emerges from this decision that the autonomous nature of arbitration vis-à-vis State justice and national legal orders is incompatible with the autonomy of the European legal order. As arbitrators do not belong to any jurisdiction, shall we therefore assume, more globally, that they can never be trusted to implement European mandatory provisions, such as European consumer rights?

This decision is a key development from the French Supreme Court within a local legal framework that has traditionally shown a liberal as well as a favourable approach to international arbitration.

As announced on this blog a few days ago, the second EAPIL Virtual Seminar, devoted to Digital Teaching and Private International Law, will take place on 27 January 2021 from 5 to 7 p.m. (MET).

Around ninety persons have already registered and will soon receive the details to attend the seminar.

All others interested in joining the discussion are encouraged to fill in this form: registrations are open until 25 January at noon.

The Comité Français de Droit International Privé has launhed the 6th edition of the Committee’s Thesis Award.

For detailed information, see the official announcement.

Eligible PhD dissertations are those written in French and defended between 1 January 2020 and 15 January 2021.

The deadline for submissions is 16 February 2021.

Pursuant to Protocol No 22 to the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, Denmark is not bound by the measures enacted by the EU in the area of freedom, security and justice, including as regards judicial cooperation in civil matters.

However, an agreement was concluded in 2005 between the European Community, as it was then, and Denmark to ensure the application in Denmark, and in respect of Denmark, of the EU rules concerning the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil and commercial matters, i.e., at that time, the rules laid down in Regulation 1348/2000.

According to Article 3(2) of the 2005 agreement, whenever amendments to the latter Regulation are adopted, Denmark shall notify to the Commission of its decision whether or not to implement the content of such amendments.

This occurred when the 2000 Service Regulation was replaced by Regulation 1393/2007, and has now occurred for Regulation 2020/1784 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters, which was adopted on 25 November 2020 (as announced on this blog by this post by Apostolos Anthimos) and is set to apply in full from 1 July 2022.

In accordance with Article 3(2) of the 2005 agreement, Denmark has by letter of 22 December 2020 notified the Commission of its decision to implement the contents of Regulation 2020/1784. In accordance with Article 3(6) of the agreement, the Danish notification creates mutual obligations between Denmark and the Community. Thus, Regulation (EU) 2020/1784 constitutes an amendment to the agreement and is considered annexed thereto.

In accordance with Article 3(4) of the agreement, the necessary administrative measures enter into force on the date of entry into force of Regulation 2020/1784.

The European Commission is carrying out a public consultation on the modernisation of judicial cooperation via digital technology (Modernising judicial cooperation between EU countries – use of digital technology). The consultation is opened until 5 February 2021 and will be taken into account for a proposal for an initiative by the European Commission. This will be followed by a public consultation later this year.

The initiative for which the European Commission is gathering input aims to make judicial cooperation in cross-border cases throughout the EU more efficient and more resilient to crises, such as the COVID-19 pandemic that we are currently going through.

The project for the regulation seeks to make it mandatory for the authorities involved in judicial cooperation each Member State to use digital technology for communicating documents and information, instead of paper, as it is usually the case at the moment. In taking this initiative, the European Commission looks to improve access to justice by ensuring that individuals, businesses and legal practitioners involved in cross-border civil, commercial or criminal cases can communicate digitally with the competent authorities in the other Member States.

Additional information on European Commission’s vision and objectives for the coming period can be found in the communication published on 2 December 2020 – Communication on digitalisation of justice in the EU – A toolbox of opportunities.

This post is addressed, in particular, to my fellow colleagues of the ILA Committee Committee on the Protection of Privacy in Private International and Procedural Law; may we meet this year, in person.

Violeta Friedman (1930–2000) was a Jewish Holocaust survivor born in Marghita, Transylvania, Romania. She became well-known in Spain thanks to a ruling of the Constitutional Court (STC 214/1991 – aka the ‘Violeta Friedman case’) on the fundamental right to honor.

Violeta Friedman was deported in 1944 to the Auschwitz-Birkenau concentration camp, at the age of fourteen. She lost most of her family to the Nazis. After the  War she lived in Canada and in Venezuela; in 1965 she moved to Spain with her daughter.

In 1985, feeling outraged by statements made by the former head of the Waffen SS L. Degrelle to a Spanish journal, where he denied the Holocaust and voiced anti-Semitic and racist opinions, she started civil proceedings in Spain against him, the journalist signing the report, and the editor of the journal. After several unfavorable decisions of the ordinary courts, the Constitutional Court of Spain confirmed her legal standing to sue in 1991, based on ‘her dual condition, as a citizen of a people such as the Jews, who suffered an authentic genocide by National Socialism, and as a descendant of her parents, maternal grandparents and great-grandmother (all of whom were murdered in the aforementioned concentration camp)’. Most relevant, just before this assertion the Court had said that

It is considered as original legal standing that of a member of a specific ethnic or social group, when the offense is directed against that entire group in such a way that, by belittling said group, it tends to provoke feelings from the rest of the social community hostile or, at least, contrary to the dignity, personal esteem or respect to which all citizens are entitled.

The Constitutional Court also found that Degrelle’s assertions amounted to a violation of the right to honor of Violeta Friedman and the victims of Nazi camps. This ruling served as a precedent for the reform of the Spanish Criminal Code.

Violeta Friedman’s claim was never contested on the basis of lack of international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts. L. Degrelle was present in Spain when he was interviewed, and there appears to have been no discussion about his domicile there at the time the court was seized; the same applies to the co-defendants. Degrelle’s anti-Semitic assertions were printed in a Spanish magazine, and distributed mainly in Spain. It could be argued that, even if the case involved a foreign element to some extent, it affected the claimant’s side and did not trigger doubts related to the international jurisdiction under the applicable rules.

40 years later, one can safely take for granted that the declarations of Degrelle would be on the net, largely accessible. Violeta Friedman could have read them at home in Madrid; other survivors of a concentration camp, at home as well, in Bucharest or in Paris – just to name a couple of places. For the sake of the argument, let’s assume that the publisher has its seat in Germany and the online newspaper is published in German on a website ending ‘.de’. Would the Spanish (Romanian, French, etc) courts still have jurisdiction for a claim like hers?

In fact, there is no need to assume anything. A preliminary reference currently pending before the Court of Justice, which has so far, to the best of my knowledge, remain unnoticed, will provide for an answer in due course. Case C-800/19 relates to a dispute between SM, a Polish national living in Warsaw, and Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG, a German company which publishes a daily journal in German on the http://www.mittelbayerische.de website. The newspaper is regional in nature but may be accessed from other countries, including Poland.

SM was a prisoner in Auschwitz during the Second World War; today, he is involved in activities aimed at preserving, in the public consciousness, the memory of the victims of crimes committed by Nazi Germany against Poles during the Second World War. On 15 April 2017, an article entitled ‘Ein Kämpfer und sein zweites Leben’ was published on http://www.mittelbayerische.de. At some point, the sentence ‘was murdered in the Polish extermination camp of Treblinka’ (italics added) appeared in the text. The phrase remained on the website for only a few hours on 15 April 2017. After an e-mail by the Polish consulate in Munich, the phrase in question was replaced with ‘was murdered by the Nazis in the German Nazi extermination camp of Treblinka in occupied Poland’, thus reflecting the historical fact that the camp in Treblinka was a German Nazi extermination camp established during the Second World War within the territory of occupied Poland.

SM lodged an application against Mittelbayerischer Verlag KG with the Regional Court of Warsaw on 27 November 2017, requesting that his personality rights, in particular national identity and national dignity, be protected by:

–   prohibiting the defendant from disseminating in any way the terms ‘Polish extermination camp’ or ‘Polish concentration camp’ in German or any other language in relation to German concentration camps located within the territory of occupied Poland during the Second World War;

–   ordering the defendant to publish on its website a statement with the content specified in the application, apologising to the applicant for the infringement of his personality rights caused by the online publication of 15 April 2017, which suggested that the extermination camp in Treblinka was built and operated by Poles;

–  ordering the defendant to pay the amount of PLN 50 000 to the Polski Związek Byłych Więźniów Politycznych Hitlerowskich Więzień i Obozów Koncentracyjnych (Polish Association of Former Political Prisoners of Nazi Prisons and Concentration Camps).

To justify the jurisdiction of the Polish court, the applicant relied on the judgment of the Court of Justice in eDate Advertising and Martinez (Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10).

The defendant filed a motion for dismissal of the action on the ground that Polish courts lack jurisdiction. He stresses that, unlike the situation in Joined Cases C-509/09 and C-161/10, the online article which became the basis for SM’s action did not directly concern the applicant. The defendant also emphasises its regional profile and readership range, as its reporting covers the Upper Palatinate, Bavaria and focuses primarily on regional news; the heading ‘Germany and the World’ is only in fourth place on the page menu. He also points out that the website exists solely in a German-language version. All in all, the defendant relies on the requirement that jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation must be predictable and claims that, operating on a local scale and addressing its message to recipients who do not include the applicant, he could not have objectively foreseen the jurisdiction of Polish courts.

The case reached the Court of Appeal of Warsaw, First Civil Division, which has addressed the following questions to the Court of Justice:

1. Should Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction based on the centre-of-interests connecting factor is applicable to an action brought by a natural person for the protection of his personality rights in a case where the online publication cited as infringing those rights does not contain information relating directly or indirectly to that particular natural person, but contains, rather, information or statements suggesting reprehensible actions by the community to which the applicant belongs (in the circumstances of the case at hand: his nation), which the applicant regards as amounting to an infringement of his personality rights?
2. In a case concerning the protection of material and non-material personality rights against online infringement, is it necessary, when assessing the grounds of jurisdiction set out in Article 7(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 […], that is to say, when assessing whether a national court is the court for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, to take account of circumstances such as:

– the public to whom the website on which the infringement occurred is principally addressed;

– the language of the website and in which the publication in question is written;

– the period during which the online information in question remained accessible to the public;

– the individual circumstances of the applicant, such as the applicant’s wartime experiences and his current social activism, which are invoked in the present case as justification for the applicant’s special right to oppose, by way of judicial proceedings, the dissemination of allegations made against the community to which the applicant belongs?

At point 16 of the request, the referring court states

At the present stage of the main proceedings, no consideration may be given to the substantive law applicable to the assessment of the claims submitted and the Sąd Apelacyjny (Court of Appeal) is even less able to consider whether those claims have merit under the substantive law and whether the applicant is entitled to make them.

I am not sure one can split the decision on legal standing and the one on international jurisdiction when the latter requires identifying the center of interest of the victim. In any event, and not only for this: a preliminary reference which deserves to be followed.

Marilyn Freeman (University of Westminster, London) has written an in-depth analysis on the Child Perspective in the Context of the 1980 Hague Convention at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI Committee) of the European Parliament.

The abstract reads as follows:

This in-depth analysis, commissioned by the Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the Committee on Legal Affairs in the context of the Workshop to mark the 40th Anniversary of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, examines the way in which subject children feature within Convention proceedings. It considers the aims of the Convention, and the lack of supranational control of its application. It draws on empirical research relating to the effects and consequences of child abduction to discuss the opportunities for children and young people to participate within Convention proceedings, and highlights the international obligations for such participation within the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child, The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and other regional instruments. Different jurisdictional approaches are explained, and the role of culture in this context is probed. The impact of COVID-19 on abducted children is also explored.

Here’s an overview of the analysis.

The 1980 Hague Convention considers as paramount children’s interest in matters relating to their custody as well as their protection from the harmful effects of their wrongful removal or retention, and the procedures to secure their prompt return to the State of habitual residence. According to Article 12(1) of the Convention an abducted child under the age of 16 should be returned in less than one year since his/her wrongful removal or retention unless one of the limited exceptions to return under the Convention is established (see Articles 12(2), 13 and 20), and there are opportunities for children’s involvement in the far-reaching decisions which are taken in those proceedings.

The way in which these relevant provisions are interpreted and applied within the 101 Contracting States determine both the extent to which children’s rights are recognised and upheld under the Convention, as well as the success of the Convention in its aim of protecting children from the harmful effects of child abduction.

The present in-depth analysis relies on a small-scale qualitative study based on 34 interviews carried out by Professor Freeman (more about this can be read here). The empirical research sought to reveal more about ‘the lived experiences of those who had been through an abduction many years earlier’ and ascertain ‘whether, and how, the participants felt that the abduction had affected their lives, and if those effects had continued long-term’.

The results indicate that there is often still a lack of awareness by children and young people, and their families, about the opportunities to participate in the proceedings, as well as on how to ensure that their rights are recognised and protected. Furthermore, to observe the right of the children to benefit from meaningful opportunities to participate in the proceedings and prevent harm, it appears that a closer integration of children’s rights’ principles in the application of the Convention is desirable.

The impact of COVID-19 on children subject to abduction proceedings is also discussed. The international nature of these cases and the difficulties and limitations created by the pandemic meant that children had to spend an undesirable period after the decision waiting for return to be carried out. Additionally, a procedure of return can involve periods of quarantine, a situation that can exacerbate the child’s distress due to the separation from the abducting parent who may be a primary or joint primary carer and who may choose not to return with the child or be unable to do so. According to the analysis, the emotional effect of a return ordered in these circumstances may be very difficult for the child to manage. The remote conduct of return hearings can also create challenges for subject children and reflect on their decision about participating in a hearing that concerns them. According to Professor Freeman ‘children should have opportunities to express their views within abduction proceedings whether or not an objection to return has been raised, and regardless of whether or not the jurisdiction involved is governed by a regulatory regime, like Brussels IIa and the upcoming Recast, which specifically address the rights of children to be heard within a specific jurisdictional area’. Thus, to protect children from the harmful effects of child abduction, it is paramount to give children who wish to participate in the proceedings about their abduction the opportunity to be heard when the decision has the potential to impact significantly on their lives.

The analysis concludes that further discussions are necessary in this area as well as a ‘closer incorporation of children’s rights’ principles in the 1980 Convention framework’.

2021 will be a milestone for the International Commission on Civil Status (ICCS). Driven by a powerful internationalisation movement, the new internal regulation of ICCS entered into force on 1 January 2021.

I have interviewed Nicolas Nord, the Secretary General of ICCS, on the Commission’s work, functioning and challenges.

— Can you remind us what the ICCS is and the scope of its activities?

The ICCS is an international organisation created in 1949. The seat is in Strasbourg, in France. Its objectives are to facilitate international co-operation in civil-status matters and to further the exchange of information between civil registrars. A practical approach has always been privileged. The idea is to deal with concrete issues that arise in the daily activity of national authorities.

To achieve the general aims, the ICCS draws up normative instruments. 34 international conventions and 11 recommendations have been adopted till today. Comparative law studies are also carried out. The goal is always the same: harmonizing the provisions in force in the member States on matters relating to the status and capacity of persons, to the family and to nationality and improving the operation of civil-status departments in those States.

It materializes in different ways and has given rise to the creation of original methods. This is the case with multilingual civil status forms which allow any State authority to understand an act issued in another State Party, without having to face the problem of translation. It is an essential tool that also makes life easier for individuals. This is why Convention n° 16 has been so successful. It is in force in 24 States. Uniform acts such as certificates of matrimonial capacity (convention n° 20) or of life (convention n° 27) have also been created. There are the same in all the States parties. Another aspect is cooperation between authorities. Different conventions allow a direct international communication between the civil registrars. This allows for simplified updating of civil status documents in the various States Parties (convention n°3, 23 and 26).

The ICCS also compiles and keeps up to date a documentation on legislation and case-law setting out the law of the member States on the matters falling within its field of competence and provides, on the basis of that documentation, information to the national authorities.

— The ICCS recently adopted a new internal regulation. Can you tell us more about it?

The will of the member States is to modernize the organisation, to adapt it to new challenges and to make it more attractive. Some essential reforms have thus been introduced. Three examples may be given. English becomes the second official language of the organisation, alongside French. Membership is no longer reserved for states but also open, from now on, to any international organisation, any regional economic integration organisation and any other international entity. Membership procedure has been simplified. An approval by the General Assembly is the only requirement.

— What’s in it for the European Private International Law community?

The birthplace of ICCS is in Europe. Most of our members are European. Our instruments are in force in many European countries, although there is of course no geographical limitation. Our desire by introducing a second official language is to allow non-French speaking countries, European or not, to join us in order to work together. We also want to allow the EU to join us.

We have been working with the European Commission for many years now. The cooperation agreement between our two institutions was concluded in 1983. The adoption of the “public documents” regulation, now in force, clearly reflects this cooperation since the methods invented by the ICCS, such as multilingual forms or the coding of civil status forms, have been used in it. However, the instruments of the EU and the ICCS now coexist in Europe. It is a source of complexity and is not always well understood by practitioners. That is why we would like to strengthen our links with the EU.

— Some scholars have recently expressed their worries about the future of the ICCS (here). What do you think?

We fully understand their concern. It is a reaction to the surprising withdrawal of France. There is a risk of disappearance of the organisation if all the States adopt the same attitude of course.This would be prejudicial for the States themselves and for the practitioners of civil status. The reform of the ICCS internal regulation is precisely a reaction to such concerns, in order to make the organisation more attractive and to ensure its sustainability. Our wish is to convince new member states, new international entities to join us and to allow a return of our former members. 

— What are the ICCS’ work forecasts and challenges ahead?

 In September 2021, we are organising a conference on our flagship convention, the convention n° 16. Our wish is to establish a kind of diagnosis and to see what works well, gives satisfaction to the practitioners but also to detect the problems which appeared since 1976, date of its adoption. This is an exciting prospect. Having such feedback will be very enriching, both for the States Parties, the civil registrars and the organisation itself.

In addition to working on the substance of the matter, we want to make our organisation known, highlight its instruments which have demonstrated their effectiveness in practice and convince new States and international organisations to join us, by becoming members or by adopting our instruments.

As a conclusion, I would like to thank Nicolas for the very interesting light he has shed on the ICCS central mission for States and regional organisations such as the European Union to pursue and perhaps even step up their work on the key-issue of civil status for mobile citizens. Let us wish that the ICCS’ makeover will lead to a greater European and international cooperation in the field of civil status in the near future!

Please note that Nicolas is available to answer any questions that fellow blog readers may have on the ICCS.

Digital teaching formats have been in discussion since they became technically possible. Nevertheless, in law and Private International Law, they never became the standard until spring 2020, when Covid-19 led to a general closure of university buildings in many countries. Thus, universities were forced to switch from in-class teaching to digital formats.

As in general teaching Private International Law already is a challenging task, the digital format does not make things easier. Private International Law faces the problem that it is a very abstract field. Therefore, for teachers it is even more paramount than in other fields to revise and ascertain that the content reaches the students in the correct ways and does not get lost in the communication process.

EAPIL takes this finding as an occasion to devote its Second Virtual Seminar to the digital teaching of Private International Law and it challenges in Corona times. The aim of the Seminar is twofold. First, it will discuss and present tools that may help to improve the digital teaching of our discipline, in particular, by making it more “present” and interactive. Second, it will compare problems and approaches from the perspective of both professors/lecturers and students.

The Seminar will be structured into two parts. The first part will focus on the perspective of professors/lecturers and the challenges of teaching Private International Law in digital formats. Speakers will be Morten Midtgaard Fogt (University of Aarhus) and Marion Ho-Dac (Polytechnic University of Hauts-de-France, Valenciennes). The second part will take the students’ perspective and discuss and present different digital teaching tools. Speakers will include Susanne Lilian Gössl (University of Kiel), María-Asunción Cebrián Salvat, Isabel Lorente Martínez and Javier Carrascosa González (all three University of Murcia).

The Seminar will take place on 27 January 2021 from 5 to 7 p.m. (MET) via Zoom.

If you wish to join, please register here by 25 January 2021 at noon. Registered participants will receive the details to join the Seminar on 26 January 2021.

The Seminar’s programme is as follows:

5:00 p.m.
Opening and Introduction
Susanne Gössl

— PART ONE

5:10 p.m.
Digital Teaching of Private International Law – The Danish Perspective
Morten Midtgaard Fogt

5:20 p.m.
Digital Teaching of Private International Law – The French Perspective
Marion Ho-Dac

5:35 p.m.
Discussion

— PART TWO

5:55 p.m.
Digital Teaching of Private International Law – the Students’ Perpective
Susanne Gössl

6:10 p.m.
Experiences with Certain Tools

“Presence” in Digital Teaching of Private International Law
María-Asunción Cebrián Salvat

Tools to Support Digital Teaching of Private International Law
Isabel Lorente Martínez

Good Things from a Bad Time: Open Experiences in Private International Law Digital Teaching
Javier Carrascosa González

6:35 p.m.
Discussion

7 p.m.
Conclusions

For more information, please write an e-mail to Susanne Gössl at sgoessl@law.uni-kiel.de.

Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute, Luxembourg) has published the second edition of his treatise on European Civil Procedural Law (Europäisches Zivilprozessrecht).

The English abstract of the book reads:

The book explores the European law of civil procedure from a systematic and dogmatic perspective by comprehensively assessing and providing a detailed explanation of all the instruments adopted in this area of the law. Based on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the book expounds on the legislative powers of the European Union (EU), the different regulatory levels of European procedural law, its underlying concepts and legislative techniques. Against this background, it addresses the interfaces of the European law of civil procedure with the civil procedures of the EU Member States and the judicial cooperation with third States. 

This treatise also focusses on latest developments such as the protection the independence of the judiciary and of the rule of law in the Member States of the EU. Moreover, it tackles alternative dispute resolution and arbitration, as well as the latest policy of the European Commission in the digitization of national justice systems. To further contextualize the development of the European law of civil procedure, it also provides the reader with a thorough understanding of preliminary reference procedures before the CJEU. In its final chapter, it addresses the current policy debate towards a European code of civil procedure.

This reference book is an essential reading for academics, regulators, and practitioners seeking reliable and comprehensive information about the European law of civil procedure. It also addresses trainee lawyers and students interested in cross-border litigation and dispute resolution, as well as those who wish to specialize in European business law.

More information is available here.

The author of this post is Lorenzo Acconciamessa, a PhD student at the University of Palermo and a teaching assistant at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan.

By a ruling of 4 November 2020, the Italian Constitutional Court declared that the combination of Italian rules precluding the formation of a child’s birth certificate that mentions two women as mothers is not at odds with the Italian Constitution. However, it acknowledged that the Constitution does not preclude the Parliament from reforming such rules and, therefore, from allowing the formal and direct recognition of same-sex parenthood in Italy.

The case concerned a same-sex couple of Italian nationals who had entered into a registered civil union in Italy and had decided to have a child. However, provided that the Italian Statute on Medically Assisted Procreation precludes same-sex couples from resorting to such practice in Italy, they went abroad, where one of them conceived a child. Then, they went back to Italy, where the biological mother gave birth to the child. The Registrar of the Municipality dismissed their request to have the intended mother indicated as parent in the birth certificate and, accordingly, the latter only mentioned the biological mother.

The couple asked the Tribunal of Venezia to rectify the birth certificate, since they wanted both of them be mentioned. However, the Tribunal acknowledged that the legislation in force in Italy does not allow for such a ruling. In particular, it considered that the prohibition of direct recognition of same-sex parenthood arises from the combined application of the Italian Statute on same-sex partnerships and the Regulation concerning the Registry of births and deaths, as interpreted in the light of the above-mentioned prohibition to access to medically assisted procreation.

According to the Tribunal, such combination of norms is at odds with the Italian Constitution and with some rules of international human rights law, namely those stipulated in Articles 8 (right to private and family life) and 14 (prohibition of discrimination) of the European Convention on Human Rights, Article 24, paragraph 3 (right to a relationship with both the child’s parents), of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, and Article 2 (right to equality and non-discrimination) of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.

In a previous post in this blog I have explained that, under Article 117, paragraph 1, of the Italian Constitution, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court, international treaties in force for Italy cannot be derogated from through legislation. Thus, domestic legislation inconsistent with an international obligation of Italy must be considered to be unconstitutional and declared void.

In the Tribunal’s view, the result of the combined application of the said rules violates the parents’ and the child’s fundamental rights. As for the formers, it breaches their right to parenthood and to procreation, as well as the prohibition of discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation and financial status. As a matter of fact, if the couple had the possibility of giving birth to the child abroad, they would had the right to obtain the record of the foreign birth certificate mentioning both of them as parents, pursuant to the case-law of the Italian Supreme Court (which refers to same-sex female couples, not same-sex male couples). As for the child, the Tribunal considered that the latter’s best interests demand the parental relationship be established with the biological and the intended mother.

The Constitutional Court considered that the non-recognition of same-sex parenthood is not at odds with the Italian Constitution, nor with the international human rights norms invoked by the Tribunal: it does not violate the parent’s and/or the child’s fundamental rights.

Those instruments, in the Court’s view, do not guarantee a right to become parents, nor a right to same-sex parenthood. At the same time, given the natural infertility of same-sex couples, limiting their access to parenthood does not involve an illegitimate form of discrimination and falls within the State’s margin of appreciation, as established by the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) in the 2019 Advisory Opinion.

In this regard, it should be considered that in 2018 the ECtHR had the opportunity to rule on same-sex couples’ right to access to medically assisted procreation. It dismissed the case on admissibility grounds, given that the applicants had not exhausted the domestic remedies provided for by the French legal order (Charron and Merle-Montet v. France). Therefore, in the view of the subsidiarity principle, the ECtHR held that domestic courts should have had the possibility to rule on the matter.

The (in)admissibility decision, however, does not exclude that the ECtHR could rule in the future that Articles 8 and 14 of the ECHR do require to allow same-sex married couples to have access to medically assisted procreation at the same conditions than heterosexual couples.

It remains that, according to the Constitutional Court, the right to same-sex parenthood is not currently recognized as a fundamental right and, therefore, cannot be invoked for declaring void the domestic rules allegedly violating it. On the other hand, the Constitutional Court admitted that the Constitution and international human rights law do not preclude Italy from recognizing that right. Nevertheless, provided that it is a sensitive issue involving a delicate balancing of interests, it falls within the Parliament’s exclusive margin of appreciation.

As for the best interests of the child, the Constitutional Court recognized that it is true that Italy has a duty to recognise the relationship between the child and the intended mother. However, provided that the conditions established by the ECtHR in the above-mentioned Advisory Opinion are fulfilled (namely, (i) effective recognition of the relationship, (ii) rapidity and (iii) assessment of all the relevant circumstances in the child’s best interests), the State enjoys a wide margin of appreciation in choosing the legal instrument for establishing such relationship.

The Constitutional Court considered, again, that Article 44, paragraph 1, of the Italian Statute on Adoption allows the intended mother to adopt her partner’s child. The so-called “adoption in particular cases”, however, does not create a full parent-child relationship from a legal point of view.

In my view, the Court failed to take into consideration the recent developments in the ECtHR’s case-law, notably as expressed in its recent ruling in the D. v. France case. In that case, the ECtHR concluded that Article 8 had not been violated precisely because the French legal order allows the intended mother to apply for the full adoption of the partner’s child. Even in this regard, however, the Constitutional Court concluded that a “different and wider protection of the child’s best interest” would be constitutionally legitimate, and that therefore the Parliament could reform – in the exercise of its own political discretion – the current legislation with the view of allowing the full-establishment of the relationship between the intended mother and the child.

The Constitutional Court did not rule, as the Tribunal had asked, that the recognition of same-sex parenthood is required by the Italian Constitution and international human rights law. The Court merely recognized that, in any case, neither the Constitution nor international human rights law prohibit same-sex parenthood. It remains to be seen whether the Parliament, in the exercise of its political discretion will decide to reform the current legislation in Italy concerning those issues.

Despite the timid recognition of the (hypothetical) constitutional legitimacy of same-sex parenthood, the Constitutional Court opted for exercising its self-restraint in favour of the legislator. It seems that the Court is not ready to rule on such sensitive and ethical issues.

In the meantime, the Court has announced that on 27 January 2021 it will hold a public hearing in the case concerning the constitutional legitimacy of the Italian rules of private international law (currently) precluding the recognition of a foreign birth certificate attesting the existence of a parent-child relationship between a child born abroad by resorting to gestational surrogacy and his intended parent.

Will the Court continue to exercise its self-restraint approach?

Noëmie Reichling (PhD, Avocat à la Cour, France) has just published a monograph on Fundamental Principles of Civil Litigation in the European Judicial Area, based on her doctoral thesis: Les principes directeur du procès civil dans l’espace judiciaire européen. Etude à partir du procès civil transfrontalier, PUAM, 2020.

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

Since the Treaty of Amsterdam entered into force on the 1st of May 1999 and the “communitarisation” of judicial cooperation in civil matters, the European Union has adopted many legal instruments relating to cross-border litigation, to the extent that one can now refer to a distinct “European International Private Law”, the governing principles of which have yet to be defined. By comparison, the French Code of Civil Procedure includes an entire chapter devoted to the governing principles applicable to civil trials. Based on a study of the European civil justice area, four governing principles can be identified: the adversarial principle, the principle of the judge’s active role, the principle of urgency and the principle of cross-border dialogue. In prospective terms, it follows that the possibility of these four principles’ being enacted in EU law is a matter worthy of examination. Several obstacles can be identified, none of which appears to be insuperable. Having been recognised as a possibility, such a consecration also seems desirable on the grounds of its several demonstrable advantages. The legal basis and vehicle of the above-mentioned four principles’ legal enshrinement remain to be determined. In this regard, article 81 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, pertaining to judicial cooperation in civil matters, could serve as a legal basis. In terms of implementation, this study also argues in favour of regulations over directives.

More details available here.

A set of seven articles on the Project IC2BE have been published in the second issue of the Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft (ZVglRWiss 119 (2020), Heft 2), a German periodical, providing information in the area of comparative law with a focus on international business law.

The articles cover a wide array of issues on cross-border debt recovery.

The opening contribution, by Jan von Hein, provides a presentation and illustrates the results of the Project (Informierte Entscheidungen in der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung – Vorstellung und Ergebnisse eines internationalen Forschungsprojekts).

Michael Stürner discusses the field of application oft the EU Regulations relating to cross-border debt recovery (Der Anwendungsbereich der EU-Verordnungen zur grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung). Christian Heinze‘s paper is about the provisional protection of claims in European Civil Procedural Law (Die Sicherung von Forderungen im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht), while Christoph Althammer’s is on the contribution of court organization to the efficiency of cross-border debt recovery (Der Beitrag der Gerichtsorganisation zur Effizienz der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung).

The article by Florian Eichel is about the contribution of modern information technology to the efficiency of of cross-border debt recovery (Der Beitrag der modernen Informationstechnologie zur Effizienz der grenzüberschreitenden Forderungsdurchsetzung). Haimo Schack’s is on the grounds for refusal of recognition and enforcement in European Civil Procedural Law (Anerkennungs- und Vollstreckungsversagungsgründe im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht).

Finally, Caroline Meller-Hannich discusses the interface and interaction of European Civil Procedural Law and national law as regards enforcement (Schnittstellen und Wechselwirkungen zwischen dem europäischen Zivilprozessrecht und dem nationalen Vollstreckungsrecht).

The Jean Monnet Chair in European Civil Procedure, hosted by the Madrid-based IE University, is the first Chair entirely devoted to the study and dissemination of the ELI-UNIDROIT Model Rules of European Civil Procedure.

The Chair is held by Marco de Benito, Professor of Law at IE University, where he teaches comparative civil procedure and international arbitration. Prof. de Benito also fosters reflection and debate on private law and legal history through the Jean Monnet Module in European Private Law.

In its quest to become a genuine area of freedom, security and justice, the EU has developed an ambitious program of normative action in civil procedure. Judicial cooperation has been strengthened. Exequatur has been abolished. Credit has been robustly protected. Sectorial action regularly includes procedural reform. In spite of this considerable acquis, the core procedural systems of states have remained anchored in national traditions. Cutting-edge policy and scholarship have advocated a deeper harmonisation. The Principles of Transnational Civil Procedure adopted by the American Law Institute (ALI) and UNIDROIT in 2004 lighted the path forward. In 2014 the European Law Institute (ELI) and UNIDROIT launched the project ‘From Transnational Principles to European Rules of Civil Procedure’, recently completed with the European Rules of Civil Procedure. Based on that project, in 2017 the European Parliament adopted a resolution requesting the Commission to put forward a proposal for a directive on common minimum standards of civil procedure in the EU.

These projects are the last frontier of civil procedural scholarship. A European proto-civil procedure code shows on the horizon. It will no longer be possible to teach or study civil procedure without making reference to the common rules and categories. The Chair embraces the paradigm shift and offers its grain of sand nationally and internationally.

IE Law School takes inspiration in the old ius commune europæum to teach law as a common language with dialectal expressions. A transnational standpoint is applied systematically. With more than 75% international students, all programmes are taught in English, while also using the original texts in class to the best extent possible. The core course touching upon civil procedure at IE, Litigation I, is dramatically transformed by the current harmonisation endeavours. Litigation I adopts the ELI-UNIDROIT Rules as leitmotif, so that students learn the structure, principles and rules of civil proceedings by reference to the common normative, conceptual and terminological framework. The Rules thus provide the students with a point of reference from which to identify the expression of this or that principle in the law and practice of selected jurisdictions. Like a musical theme with multiple variations, a dialogue between the European Rules and the national laws is established.

Based on that experience, the Chair builds on three more levels: a Study Group (in which students do and comment readings and research); a Faculty Seminar (in which teaching experiences are shared); and the IE Civil Procedure Series, a series of roundtables where students, academics, practitioners, judges, policymakers, from Europe and beyond, can explore the Rules, together with the leaders in the field.

The author of this post is Simon Laimer, professor at the Linz University.

The claimant, an airline established in Austria, and the defendant, which operates a hotel in India, concluded a written contract for the accommodation of the airline’s crew members in the defendant’s hotel as well as their transfer from the airport to the hotel.

The agreement provided, among other things, that the defendant should indemnify the claimant in respect of any damage to property or injury or death of persons, encompassing the property of the claimant and the crew members, caused by negligent or wilful misconduct of the hotel or its staff.

Furthermore, the agreement included an exclusive jurisdiction clause on behalf of a competent court in Vienna (Austria) and provided that it shall be governed by Austrian law without reference to the choice of law principles thereof. During a transfer from the airport to the hotel commissioned by the defendant a traffic accident occurred and several crew members were injured.

The claimant brought a claim to the Vienna commercial court (Handelsgericht) for payment of damages, including damage claims assigned to it by its crew members. While the Handelsgericht determined its jurisdiction based on the jurisdiction clause, the Court of Appeal rejected the claim in so far as it concerned the crew members’ claims assigned to the claimant for lack of international jurisdiction of the Austrian courts.

By a ruling of 29 June 2020, the Austrian Supreme Court (2 Ob 104/19m) confirmed the international jurisdiction of Austrian courts also with regard to that part of the claim. The Court held that a jurisdiction clause under Article 25 Brussels I bis Regulation cannot be invoked against third parties benefitting from the contract (citing the ruling of the Court of Justice in Refcomp), but they could rely on it if the interpretation of the clause leads to the conclusion that it (also) aims at protecting them, hence only the effect of prorogation but not the effect of derogation applies.

The decision may be correct in its outcome, although it remains questionable whether the Austrian Supreme Court should have referred this case to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling.

The CJEU recently ruled (in his – debatable – decision in Ryanair v DelayFix; see also Matthias Lehmann) that the mere assignment of a claim is not sufficient for the assignee to be bound by a choice-of-court clause (unless the assignee is the successor to all the initial contracting party’s rights and obligations under the applicable law; para 47). In the present case, however, the roles of the parties were exactly reversed: the Austrian Supreme Court found that, in accordance with the definition of responsibilities covered by the contract, a place of jurisdiction in favor of the assignors had been agreed between the contracting parties. With regard to the interpretation of the jurisdiction clause, both the law applicable to the contractual relationship and the lex fori led to Austrian law, which is why the Austrian Supreme Court found that it did not have to decide the corresponding dispute in legal literature (cf. Caterina Benini on the subject).

Well, it may be sufficiently clear in Austrian national law and as well in the field of insurance contract law according to art. 15 No. 2 Brussels I bis (see CJEU in Gerling v Amministrazione del tesoro dello Stato) that choice-of-court agreements in favor of third parties are effective (at least with regard to the effect of prorogation), but a CJEU decision going beyond this could have contributed to legal clarity.

A detailed summary of the decision is available in the latest issue (4-2020) of The European Legal Forum.

Cedric Ryngaert, Professor of Public International Law at the Utrecht University, has kindly accepted to provide a presentation of his latest monograph, ‘Selfless Intervention – The Exercise of Jurisdiction in the Common Interest’ (Oxford University Press 2020). This post draws on the monograph’s concluding observations.

This monograph inquires how a cosmopolitan agenda could be implemented in the law of jurisdiction. At first sight, such an inquiry might look like an attempt at marrying fire and ice. Cosmopolitans tend to focus on the individual as the ultimate unit of moral concern, and are interested in bringing about ‘global justice’ (whether of the human or environmental variant), regardless of geographical location. They are always concerned with the negotiation and overcoming of delineated political borders. In contrast, the law of jurisdiction, given its close connection to the seminal concept of state sovereignty in international relations, has ‘borders’ written all over it.

Nevertheless, political allegiance to territorially delineated states and allegiance to an international community project based on universal human solidarity need not be mutually exclusive. Kwame Appiah, one of the leading political philosophers of cosmopolitanism, has coined the term ‘constitutional patriotism’ in his respect: ‘We cosmopolitans can be patriots, loving our homelands (not only the states where we were born but the states where we grew up and the states where we live); our loyalty to humankind so vast, so abstract, a unity does not deprive us of the capacity to care for lives nearer by.’ Accordingly, the actual existence of borders need not prove fatal to the cosmopolitan project.

Some authors have even suggested that the ‘state’ could be considered as a cosmopolitan construct in its own right. A somewhat less extreme position, taken by this monograph, is that states may perhaps have primarily been set up or conceived to serve their own citizens, but that this does not bar them from serving a global citizenship and protecting humankind’s common concerns. This cosmopolitan, global citizenship-based authority and responsibility of states has gained increased attention from political theorists disenchanted with the disconnect between moral idealism and actual international political practice, which revolves very much around states indeed. Thus, in a praiseworthy and wide-ranging volume on the cosmopolitan responsibilities of the state (2019), Beardsworth et al investigate ‘the possibility that states can become bearers of cosmopolitan responsibilities while also remaining vehicles for popular self-determination’. Along the same lines, for an international lawyer interested in jurisdictional questions, the challenge is to investigate how the law of state jurisdiction – the initial aim of which was to prevent state sovereignties from clashing with each other – is, and can be reinterpreted to serve cosmopolitan or ‘selfless’ ends, alongside parochial, national interest-based ends.

Inevitably, the quest to conceive the notion of jurisdiction as a vehicle for selfless intervention by states is closely bound up with epistemic evolutions regarding jurisdiction’s twin concept of state sovereignty. After all, jurisdiction is the legal emanation of the political notion of state sovereignty. The state manifests its sovereign power by exercising jurisdiction, ie prescribing and enforcing its laws, and adjudicating disputes on the basis of these laws. In the monograph I argue that the concept of sovereignty is malleable and allows for novel, contemporary understandings of sovereignty being in the service of the international community. It is logical, then, that jurisdiction could fulfil the same function.

However, jurisdiction is not simply an emanation of sovereignty, ie originating or issuing from sovereignty. As Irani suggested, jurisdictional assertions

not only form, border, and construct “the state”: they are the state. The state is instantiated in its jurisdictional assertions … Changing jurisdictional assertions do not simply change what “the state” does: they further change what the state is, who and what it includes and excludes, and crucially, where it is located.

Thus, the nature of the state and of state sovereignty may change as a result of actual jurisdictional practices. This also means that jurisdictional assertions may yield the formation of new political communities that do not necessarily track the physical borders of the state. For our research object, it means that a state becomes cosmopolitan to the extent that it engages in cosmopolitan jurisdictional practices. Accordingly, to fully grasp the contemporary epistemic transformation of state sovereignty, a fine-grained analysis of actual instances of the exercise of  jurisdiction by states is imperative.

In the monograph I demonstrate that, regardless of the dynamics of globalization, interconnectedness, deterritorialization or international solidarity characterizing the current era, when addressing transnational or global challenges, states continue to give pride of place to the core principle of the law of jurisdiction: the principle of territoriality. While use of territoriality to capture the extraterritorial may seem somewhat incongruous, as Rajkovic has pointed out, that ‘territorial boundaries have been always, to varying degrees, in temporal flux.’ Hence, the newly minted concept of ‘territorial extension’, which has played a prominent role in this monograph, may not be a conceptual revolution in the law of jurisdiction. Still,  it does point to an expanding state praxis of states formally relying on territoriality to – in fact – reach beyond state borders.

Also to roll out a cosmopolitan agenda, the principle of territoriality has been the primary jurisdictional gateway. To be true, universality – which is triggered by the gravity of an offence rather than a (territorial) connection to the regulating state – is well-known in the law of jurisdiction, but it only has purchase in respect of a limited number of offences, and arguably only in the field of criminal law. This renders universality, as it is currently understood, ill-suited to address the range of global governance challenges confronting humanity, eg climate change, unsustainable fishing practices, or corporate human rights abuses. Territoriality then emerges as an unlikely savior for the cosmopolitan project, as its capaciousness allows states to ‘territorialize the extraterritorial’ and contribute to the realization of global justice.

There are many instances of states using a territorial hook to address essentially extraterritorial activities, both historic and more recent ones. Some of these jurisdictional assertions have a cosmopolitan dimension, in that they have the realization of global justice as their goal (deontological cosmopolitanism), or as their effect (consequentialist cosmopolitanism). In the field of criminal law, where the origins of the international law of jurisdiction lie, the long-standing ubiquity principle has enabled states to exercise territorial jurisdiction over the whole of an offence as soon as a constituent element could be located on the territory. The seminal idea that it suffices for an element of a particular offense or event to be linked to the territory for territorial jurisdiction to be validly exercised, has cast a long shadow. It has paved the way for a host of jurisdictional assertions that rely on tenuous, artificial or even fictitious territorial connections, assertions which may also serve the common interest. In the monograph I explain how territoriality has been creatively used in such diverse areas as the environment, fisheries, business and human rights litigation, and data protection, to further (sometimes only nascent) global values and common interests.

This area analysis is by no means exhaustive. Also, in other areas, which are not addressed in detail in the monograph, has territoriality been similarly instrumentalized, such as competition law, foreign corrupt practices, and secondary sanctions legislation.  In the field of competition law, US and European courts have exercised jurisdiction over foreign-origin restrictive practices that are implemented or have direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable anti-competitive effects on the territory. While this effects jurisdiction has traditionally been relied upon to protect the national economy, wider goals such as boosting global deterrence of anti-competitive conduct and increasing global welfare for both domestic and foreign consumers have been propounded and arguably pursued. Also as regards enforcement of foreign corrupt practices and economic sanctions legislation, which could be considered cosmopolitan insofar as this contributes to the stamping out of global corrupt practices blighting the developmental prospects of foreign populations, or to clamping down on commercial transactions with regimes violating human rights or threatening international security, have courts, especially US courts, given wide interpretations to territoriality. All this speaks to the enduring attractiveness of territoriality to address transnational and global challenges.

In themselves, some territorial connections may be too tenuous to support successful reliance on the territoriality principle. After all, the permissive principles of jurisdiction should be interpreted in light of the substantial connection requirement undergirding the law of jurisdiction. However, one of the main arguments in this monograph is that the legality of jurisdictional assertions resting on weak territorial links may be boosted by these assertions’ very contribution to the common interest, and preferably by their embeddedness in, or relationship with international regulatory instruments. Thus, trade restrictions aimed at tackling climate change may derive their jurisdictional legality from their contribution to the goals of the Paris Climate Agreement, regardless of the diffuse character of the effects which emissions tend to have on the territory of the regulating state. By the same token, the insertion of an unqualified territorial principle in the UN Convention against Corruption and the OECD Convention against Bribery may give international backing for wide interpretations of the principle by Contracting Parties; the nature of corruption as a global scourge may compensate for the weak territorial link which certain foreign practices may have.

It could even be argued that, from a normative perspective, territoriality should more often, and more expansively be relied on when it comes to global values and common interests, in order to prevent that no state’s law applies. As it happens, some conventions require that states exercise territorial jurisdiction, not only in the field of core international crimes (eg torture), but also as regards transnational offences such as corruption. The Port State Measures Agreement, for its part, requires that states deny entry or privileges to visiting foreign-flagged vessels which engaged in IUU fishing. Also human rights treaties or fundamental rights instruments may mandate that states exercise their jurisdiction more vigorously. The human right to a remedy may require state courts to give a liberal interpretation to principles of adjudicatory jurisdiction, such as the principles of domicile, connected claims, or forum of necessity (all of which can be considered as variations of territoriality), so that victims of (corporate) human rights abuses have their day in court, even if they sustained harm outside the territory. In the same vein, the nature of data protection as a fundamental right in the EU exerts pressure on EU regulators and courts to give wide interpretations to territorial jurisdiction with a view to safeguarding the rights of EU residents.

Conversely, expansive jurisdictional assertions which do not further widely recognized common interests may, in the absence of a strong nexus with the regulating state, be more difficult to justify. For instance, the US imposition of ‘secondary’ sanctions on non-US persons engaging in commercial transactions with non-US sanctioned entities may well violate the law of jurisdiction, as the territorial or personal nexus of sanctions with the US is typically very tenuous, and such sanctions may not give effect to an international consensus on the harmful activities of the sanctioned entity. Also, expansive assertions of effects-based jurisdiction in the field of competition (antitrust) law may be problematic, insofar as such assertions are based on weak territorial connections, and insofar as an international agreement on the illegality of particular anti-competitive practices remains elusive. Jurisdictional assertions that are not based on a strong nexus to the state and do not build on international instruments recognizing particular values and common interests are likely to unjustifiably intrude on the policy space of other states and violate the principle of non-intervention.

This is not to say, however, that jurisdictional assertions of which the object is internationally recognized, pass muster with the law of jurisdiction as soon as some territorial link can be discerned, however tenuous. To prevent that territorial jurisdiction degenerates into connectionless universal jurisdiction, a quantum of (territorial) connection may still be required. This may prevent the eruption of international conflict, and the wasting of precious domestic resources. In light of loss of territoriality in an era of economic globalization and of revolutions in communication technology, the quest for this required quantum under customary international law in still on-going.

Efforts at restricting the reach of territoriality speak to a desire to safeguard the traditional role of the principle of territoriality as a principle of jurisdictional order rather than justice. In its original Westphalian incarnation, territoriality aims at delimiting spheres of competence and preventing undue intervention in other states’ affairs. As the limits of territoriality are pushed to almost breaking point in order to address global and transnational challenges, some pushback against overly loose interpretations which undermine the principle’s function as competence-delimitator is expected. At the same time, precisely because of the poor fit of the concept of territoriality and the reality of global challenges, more revolutionary jurisdictional thinking no longer focuses on territoriality as the main jurisdictional linchpin, but instead suggests reliance on other connections to the regulating state, or on the goals of regulatory intervention. As regards connections, scholars of global legal pluralism have urged increased attention to personal or community connections, whereas others have emphasized the substantiality of connections mitigated by the principle of reasonableness. Especially in the context of access to data in the ‘extraterritorial cloud’, multiple, technology-driven connecting criteria have been proposed. Yet others have advanced a broad construction of the national interest as the jurisdictional trigger, or suggested conceiving of cosmopolitan jurisdiction as a form of functional jurisdiction, the exercise of which is, in given circumstances, justified by its furthering of the common interest. At the far end of the spectrum, the link between jurisdiction and the state has been abandoned altogether, and jurisdictional empowerment of private actors in a transnational legal space has been mooted.

It is appropriate to observe, finally, that no scheme of jurisdictional (al-)location is ever politically neutral. All schemes have important distributive effects, in that it may further the interests of one actor (eg a multinational corporation) to the detriment of those of another (eg victims of human rights abuses).

However the exercise of state jurisdiction in the common interest is doctrinally conceived (as a form of territorial, community, functional, or universal jurisdiction), care should be taken to prevent jurisdictional overreach and imperial imposition. After all, such jurisdiction is enacted unilaterally by individual states or regional organizations, even if the common interest which is (supposedly) served is international in nature. Unilateral action carries the risk that the regulating state imposes its own value conceptions and furthers its own interests, thereby impinging on foreign persons’ right to self-government. To limit this risk, in the monograph I suggest a number of techniques of restraint, such as allowing foreign affected states, communities and persons a voice in the design and enforcement of regulation with extraterritorial effect, recognition of equivalent foreign regulation, and compensation of affected persons and entities. These techniques of jurisdictional reasonableness discipline unilateralism and increase its legitimacy as a tool to further the common interest in the absence of adequate multilateral or host state regulation and enforcement.

Techniques of restraint should however not be interpreted too strictly lest states prove unwilling to exercise their jurisdiction. Bearing in mind that global public goods tend to be underprovided because of free-riding, the risk of normative conflicts among states should not be inflated. Thus, states should be offered sufficient jurisdictional leeway to assume their responsibility in respect of the common interest. To give just one example, international comity-inspired principles of adjudicatory jurisdiction may be in need of an overhaul, or at least a more liberal interpretation, so that they can be more effectively relied on to deliver justice for individuals suffering extraterritorial human rights abuses.

In spite of the title of the monograph, ultimately, selfless intervention remains somewhat of a mirage. As I argue in the monograph, states are unlikely to exercise jurisdiction in the common interest if it is not also somehow in their own interests. In this respect, states may consider the existence of a jurisdictional connection as a proxy for the existence of an interest, so that framing extraterritorial as territorial conduct (‘territorializing the extraterritorial’) may have enforcement advantages. In practice, however, especially in the social, economic and environmental fields, a domestic rule integrity logic tends to inform common interest-oriented unilateralism. The danger of foreign regulatory leakage as a result of strict domestic regulation serving common interests (eg addressing climate change, combating foreign corrupt practices, protecting data) more or less compels first-moving states to extend their regulation extraterritorially. In so doing, states pursue prima facie parochial interests (safeguarding the competitive opportunities of their own businesses) alongside common interests.

In the field of human rights and international crimes, a less selfish justice logic may be expected, but also there, extra-legal incentives may be required before states exercise their jurisdiction. For instance, Germany’s vigorous prosecution of Syrian war criminals, mainly under the universality principle, may be informed by the presence of a large number of Syrian refugees, whose integration in Germany might be furthered in case their torturers (some of whom have posed as refugees themselves) are brought to justice. Alternatively, a state’s exercise of jurisdiction over gross human rights violations could be informed by a desire to brandish its liberal values and to set itself apart from an amoral world dominated by Realpolitik.

Faced with governance deficits at international and national levels, third states’ exercise of unilateral jurisdiction has its rightful place in the international legal order, as third state legal prescription and adjudication may well be the only means to safeguard common interests. Therefore, states’ extensions of national laws into the global sphere can promote world order and justice. However, safety valves should be provided to ensure that such jurisdiction, as a tool of global governance, is exercised responsibly and reasonably. Ideally, unilateral jurisdiction with extraterritorial effects is just a temporary means of providing protection and justice. It should not displace multilateral and foreign regulation and enforcement, but rather emphasize the latter’s urgency. Obviously, this regulation and enforcement are likely to mirror the preferences of powerful first-moving states, who may only be willing to forego their unilateralism provided that international and foreign norms and practices approximate their own. Such ‘contingent unilateralism’ should not be considered as holding the multilateral process hostage, but rather as a welcome tool to overcome the tyranny of consent and address its anti-commons streak.