Agrégateur de flux

Thanks to Costanza Honorati and Laura Carpaneto for the tip!

The Practice Guide on the Brussels IIb Regulation (Regulation 2019/1111) has been published on the site of the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters (EJN) – scroll to the bottom.

The Guide was written by Boriana Musseva under a contract between the European Commission and Milieu Consulting. It uses the name Brussels IIb (presumably the Commission’s preferred nomenclature) even though some authors also use Brussels IIter. The Guide is still being translated in the other EU languages and will then also be published with the other information that the Commission provides on the European Judicial Atlas.

Here is the direct link to the Practice Guide for the application of the Brussels IIb Regulation.

A volume titled “Cross-Border Litigation in Central Europe: EU Private International Law Before National Courts” and edited by Csongor István Nagy (University of Szeged, Hungary & Center for Social Sciences, Budapest) has recently been published by Kluwer. It was and authored by Katazyna Bogdzevic, Pavle Flere, Lucia Gandzalova, Justyna Gumula-Kedracka, Tena Hosko, Monika Jagielska, Elena Judova, Inga Kacevska, Wojciech Klyta, Vadim Mantrov, Csongor István Nagy, Gabor Palasti, Dora Zgrabljic Rotar, Magdalena Sobas, Janos Szekely, Dace Trupovniece, Jiri Valdhans, Emod Veress, Lucie Zavadilova. The book provides a detailed understanding of the process of seeking justice in cross-border disputes in Central Europe and a comprehensive and exhaustive presentation of the case law in 10 Central European Member States (Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia). It is the first of its kind to offer a comprehensive and analytical overview of the judicial practice in the region. More information on the book, its content and contributors is available here.

The book is a product of the multi-year EU-funded CEPIL project (“Cross-Border Litigation in Central-Europe: EU Private International Law before National Courts”, 800789 — CEPIL — JUST-AG-2017/JUST-JCOO-AG-2017), which was based on the cooperation of six universities (University of Szeged, Hungary, Masarykova univerzita, Czech Republic, Sveu?ilište u Zagrebu, Croatia, Universitatea Sapientia din municipiul Cluj-Napoca, Romania, Univerzita Mateja Bela v Banskej Bystrici, Slovakia, Uniwersytet ?l?ski, Poland). The CEPIL project inquired whether EU private international law functions optimally in the Central European Member States to secure a Europe of law and justice and whether EU private international law instruments are applied correctly and uniformly. It analyzed whether national courts deal appropriately with disputes having a cross-border element and whether the current legal and institutional architecture is susceptible of securing legal certainty and an effective remedy for cross-border litigants. More information on the project is available here.

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, who is a Senior Lecturer at the Stockholm University.

In IRnova (C-399/21), decided on 8 September 2022, the CJEU clarified the interpretation of Article 24(4) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The latter provision confers exclusive jurisdiction “in proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents, trade marks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered” upon “the courts of the Member State in which the deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place or is under the terms of an instrument of the Union or an international convention deemed to have taken place”.

In its judgment, the Court ruled that Article 24(4) is to be interpreted as not applying to a dispute, in the context of an action based on an alleged status of inventor or co-inventor, concerning the determination of whether a person is entitled to certain inventions referred to in patent applications filed and patents granted in third countries.

I reported on the facts and the question referred here but a brief synopsis follows.

The Swedish company IRnova AB brought proceedings before the Swedish Patent and Market Court against the Swedish company FLIR Systems AB for a declaration that it was entitled to inventions referred to in certain European, US and Chinese patent applications and certain US patents on the ground that its employee was the true inventor (or co-inventor).

The Patent and Market Court dismissed the part of IRnova’s action concerning the patent applications filed in the US and China and the patent granted in the US. Incidentally, the court retained jurisdiction over the European applications which are governed by the lex specialis rules in the Protocol on Jurisdiction and the Recognition of Decisions in respect of the Right to the Grant of a European Patent.

IRnova AB appealed to the Patent and Market Court of Appeal, which asked the CJEU whether Article 24(4) could be applied to these types of entitlement disputes concerning patents registered and applied for in non-Member States.

The CJEU began by slightly reformulating the referring court’s question to refer to applications filed and patents granted in third States as opposed to non-Member States (paras 22-24). Thereafter, the CJEU established that the dispute had international character and therefore fell within the scope of the BIa Regulation (paras 25-31). Referring to its decision Owusu, C-281/02, the CJEU observed that international character may be based on the subject-matter of the dispute (here the patent applications and the patents) being connected to a third State.

Thereafter, the CJEU answered the question whether Article 24(4) applied to a situation such as the one in the Swedish proceedings. First, the CJEU observed that it follows from the wording of Article 24(4) that it concerns the courts of a Member State of registration and therefore the provision was not applicable to patents applied for and registered in third States (paras 32-35).

Second, the CJEU held that entitlement disputes, including those based on inventorship, are not “concerned with the registration or validity of patents” in the meaning of Article 24(4) (paras 36-49). In this regard, the CJEU recalled that the concept was autonomous and that it must not be given a wider interpretation than is required by its objective (paras 38-39).

The CJEU also recalled its case law in Duijnstee, 288/82 , GAT, C-4/03, and Hanssen Beleggingen, C-341/16 where it held that the rule on exclusive jurisdiction in what is now Article 24(4) is justified by the fact that the courts of the Member State where the patents are applied for or registered are best placed to adjudicate upon cases in which the dispute itself concerns the validity or lapse of a patent, the existence of the deposit or registration or an alleged right of priority by reason of an earlier deposit. It recalled further that an action which merely raises the question of who is the owner of a patent or whether a person has been correctly registered as the owner of a trade mark is not covered by that rule of exclusive jurisdiction because such questions are not closely linked in fact and law to the place where the right has been registered (paras 36-41).

The CJEU stated that the dispute in the Swedish proceedings did not concern these questions but only the question concerning the right to the inventions or to a part of them (para 42).

In this regard, the Court observed first that the question of who owns the inventions, which includes the question of who is the inventor, does not concern the application for an intellectual property right or the right as such, but the object of the right. The CJEU referred to its earlier case law on the justification for Article 24(4) and concluded that it was relevant in a case such as the one in the Swedish proceedings where the question relates only to the entitlement to object of the right, i.e. the invention (para 43).

Thereafter, the CJEU noted that the question of who is the inventor, which the CJEU noted was the sole issue in the Swedish proceedings, is a preliminary question and therefore distinct from that of whether a patent application has been filed or a patent granted. In addition, the CJEU stated that the dispute did not concern the validity an application, but seeks only to establish the right to the inventions themselves. The CJEU stated that the fact that a lack of entitlement to an invention may constitute a ground for refusal of the application is therefore not relevant to the jurisdiction to hear disputes concerning inventorship (paras 44-45).

Lastly, the CJEU stated that the preliminary question of who is an inventor is also distinct from that of the validity of the patent and that latter question was not part of the case in the Swedish proceedings.

The CJEU added that even if the national court was required to examine the claims in the patent applications or patents to determine each employee’s contribution to the invention, this examination does not concern the patentability of the invention.

The CJEU further added that infringement actions also require an in-depth assessment of the protection afforded under the law of the protecting country but that it had previously held that such actions were not covered by the rule on exclusive jurisdiction (paras 46-48).

In my opinion, the CJEU comes to a sensible outcome – the parties should not need to pursue duplicative proceedings in every granting third State with risk that inventorship is decided differently in different states.

The question of inventorship is not closely linked in fact to the state where the patent was applied for or granted as the relevant facts will have taken place where the invention was made, which in this case was most likely in Sweden. Although there is proximity in law to the State where the patent was applied for or granted (the CJEU noted that the Swedish court will likely need to apply US and Chinese law), inventorship disputes are mostly factual disputes concerning who actually came up with the inventive idea, and not the legal value of the parties’ contributions.

If IRnova succeeds with its case on the merits, an interesting question is how it will get the judgment enforced. It can use the Swedish judgment in support of a request before the US and Chinese authorities to persuade them to correct the applicant or owner. An interesting question is whether IRnova can request the Swedish court to order FLIR Systems to transfer the patent applications and patents to it.

Lastly, the decision has significant implications so it is surprising that the CJEU did not obtain a written opinion from the Advocate General. Indeed, the CJEU dealt with the question whether Article 24(4) applies to third States in a rather summary fashion.

The question whether Article 24 in general can be given reflexive effect either as a matter of EU law or national law has been hotly debated in the legal doctrine so I would have expected more than a textual argument to support the CJEU’s conclusion.

I mentioned the pending case C-339/22 BSH Hausgeräte v Aktiebolaget Electrolux yesterday at our excellent (if I say so myself) Max Planck Institute – EAPIL – KU Leuven workshop on Brussels Ia reform. Questions referred, are

Is Article 24(4) [BIA] to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?

Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the [Swedish] Patentlagen (Patents Law), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?

Is Article 24(4) [BIa] to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

BSH hold a European patent relating to a vacuum cleaner. The patent has been validated in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey. Electrolux of Sweden has subsidiaries in a number of other Member States, such as Germany. A number of disputes have arisen between BSH and companies in the Electrolux group concerning the patent in question. Inter alia, the European patent validated in Germany was invalidated in 2020 by a German court at the request of a subsidiary of Electrolux. That judgment has been appealed.

On 3 February 2020, BSH brought an action against Electrolux before the Patents and Market Court in Sweden and claimed inter alia that Electrolux should be prohibited from using the patented invention in all the abovementioned States and ordered to pay reasonable compensation for the unlawful use. BSH also claimed compensation for the additional damage caused by Electrolux’s alleged patent infringement. Electrolux argue that the Court should dismiss the action in relation to the foreign parts of the patents. In its view the foreign patents are invalid and the Swedish court therefore lacks jurisdiction to hear infringement actions concerning those patents.

End of December 2020 the court agreed, citing A24(4) viz the EU patents (the claim being issued prior to Brexit implementation day, this includes the UK) and ‘an internationally accepted principle of jurisdiction’ (in essence, the Moçambique rule) viz the Turkish patent.

BSH of course appeal.

A asked students in the August resit exams how they think the CJEU should answer. On Q1 I would expect them to cite the need to interpret A24 restrictively, with reference to one or two cases confirming same (there are plenty); and the lack of solution in the Brussels Recast. Contrary to what Electrolux contend, a proposal to allow a court to merely stay the case pending the foreign court’s decision on validity, was never rejected. Such a proposal was never made. BIa merely confirmed CJEU Gat v Luk’s holding that exclusive jurisdiction kicks in regardless of whether the argument of invalidity is introduced as a claim of by way of defence.

On Q2 I would like to seem them argue something to the effect that national CPR must not infringe the effet utile of BIa. (Only) if the effect of the Swedish rules is that it requires the defendant to initiate IPR invalidity claims in all the relevant States, or lose its possibility of an invalidity defence, this would in my view run counter BIa’s intention and scope.

Finally, on the 3rd Q they should engage with the lack of BIa clarification on reflexive effect, other than in the strict confines of A33-34 and its related recitals. Relevant case-law of course includes Ferrexpo and Central Santa Lucia L.C. v. Meliá Hotels International S.A. Interested readers may wish to consult Alexander Layton KC’s most excellent paper on same. Some students may refer to the UPC developments and the jurisdictional consequences in Article 71 BIa (operational 2023?).

Geert.

The Court of Justice delivered yesterday its judgment in case C‑399/21 (IRnova AB v FLIR Systems AB), which is about the scope of application of Article 24 Brussels I bis. The judgment is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version)

“L’article 24, point 4, du règlement (UE) no 1215/2012 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 12 décembre 2012, concernant la compétence judiciaire, la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière civile et commerciale, doit être interprété en ce sens que : il ne s’applique pas à un litige tendant à déterminer, dans le cadre d’un recours fondé sur la qualité alléguée d’inventeur ou de co-inventeur, si une personne est titulaire du droit sur des inventions visées par des demandes de brevet déposées et par des brevets délivrés dans des pays tiers”.

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=265068&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1837579

TP (Monteur audiovisuel pour la télévision publique)
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocate générale Ćapeta, l’orientation sexuelle ne saurait être une raison pour refuser de conclure un contrat avec un travailleur indépendant

D.B.P. (Crédit hypothécaire libellé en devises étrangères)
Environnement et consommateurs
Prêts libellés en devise étrangère : si le consommateur s’y oppose, le juge national ne peut pas substituer à une clause abusive liée au prix de conversion une disposition de droit national à caractère supplétif

Ministerstvo životního prostředí (Perroquets Ara hyacinthe)
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour apporte des précisions à la notion d’« élevage en captivité » des spécimens de perroquet Ara hyacinthe

Staatssecretaris van Justitie en Veiligheid
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice CIT
Un ressortissant d’un pays tiers qui bénéficie d’un titre de séjour en tant que membre de la famille d’un citoyen de l’Union peut acquérir, lorsqu’il remplit les conditions prévues par le droit de l’Union, le statut de résident de longue durée

Boriss Cilevičs e.a.
L’obligation de dispenser des programmes d’enseignement supérieur dans la langue officielle de l’État membre peut être conforme à la liberté d’établissement

The Danish Supreme Court held in a judgment of 31 May 2022 (case 134/2018), that Danish law should be applied for tort liability for assaults committed during the military operation Green Desert in Iraq in 2004.

In the aftermath of the war in Iraq in 2003, Iraq was controlled and administrated by international coalition forces. Danish troops took part in the coalition between 2003 and 2007. In 2004, Danish and British troops collaborated with Iraqi military in a search and arrest operation called “Green Desert”. During the operation, several Iraqis claimed that they were subject to torture. For this maltreatment, 18 Iraqis filed a civil lawsuit against the Danish Defence Authority for tort compensation in Denmark.

In its judgment, the Danish Supreme Court found that it was proven that Iraqis had been subject to assault during operation Green Desert. Whether the Danish Defence Authority could be held liable for the assaults should be decided according to Danish law and the European Convention on Human Rights.

The conclusion to apply Danish law was not elaborated in the judgment. However, the Danish Supreme Court notes that pursuant to section 18 in the Coalition Provisional Authority’s Order 17, third party claims shall be dealt with “in a manner consistent with the Sending State’s laws, regulations and procedures”. Regardless of whether the order could be seen as having status of Iraqi law or not, the Supreme Court held that its status does not matter as it points out Danish law to be applicable. Perhaps, this statement by the Supreme Court can be interpreted as an allowing attitude to the doctrine of renvoi as it seems that a remission to Danish law would be accepted if Iraqi law would have been pointed out by Danish choice of law rules. As the judgment is not at all framed as a private international law matter, such conclusions shall probably be cautiously made.

In substance, the Danish Supreme Court held that the Iraqi plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation according to the Danish Damages Act’s Section 26 on liability for torts as it was not proven that assault was conducted by Danish troops. Nor was it proven that the Danish troops should have known or understood that collaborating Iraqi military personnel would conduct assault to the civilians. Eventually, the Supreme Court held that nor did the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) lead to a different result. In this part, the Supreme Court concluded that the alleged assaults were conducted on territory controlled by Iraq. Hence, Denmark lacked public international law jurisdiction, which is a prerequisite for application of the ECHR according to Article 1.

Dans l’affaire du 28 juin 2022, Boutaffala c/ Belgique, la Cour européenne des droits l’homme a rappelé les conséquences sur la charge de la preuve de l’application du principe « in dubio pro reo ».

en lire plus

The current issue of Lex & Forum explores the existing status of Private International Law & the Internet, and tries to map out solutions and proposals for the future.

The issue benefits from the privilege of hosting papers of two worldwide leading figures in the area of private international law: Professor Dan Svantesson is sharing his insightful conclusions about the current state of the interplay between Private International Law & the Internet and, also, points at the critical problems that need to be addressed in order to secure a better digital future. In doing so, he sets the tone of the entire issue. At the same time, Professor Symeon Symeonides offers a fascinating account of a much needed international coordination effort. After explaining the current status of addressing internet related personality infringemetns accross different jurisdictions, Prof. Symeonides focuses on the initiative of the Institut de Droit International (IDI), which at its 79th biennial session adopted a critical Resolution on internet related personality infringements and Private International Law. Prof. Symeonides explains vividly how this transnational initiative improves over existing regional approaches and offers great insights on its history, rationale and development.

The papers of Prof. Svantesson and Prof. Symeonides are accompanied by that of Professor Ioannis Deliskostopoulos, University of Athens, who offers an excellent account of how the CJEU has been dealing with the challenge of personality related internet disputes. Trying to address future challenges, a second family of papers focused on blockchain based issues. Dr. Ioannis Revolidis, Lecturer at the University of Malta, contributes a primer on International Jurisdiction and the Blockchain, by exploring the unique characteristics of blockchain based systems and by extending his analysis on the so-called Non Fungible Tokens. Dr. Nikolaos Zaprianos puts the challenge of smart contracts into perspective, offering an excellent account about the limits of automation in contractual relationships, while Dr. Konstantinos Voulgarakis monitors the impact of cryptoassets in capital markets and the ensuing private international law challenges. All the aforementioned papers have been presented during a webinar hosted by Lex&Forum on May 13 2022 (youtube.com/watch?v=84wCNVyWXPA&t=652s, accessed 3.9.2022).

The analysis of the relation between Private International Law & the Internet in the current issue of Lex&Forum is concluded with the Praefatio authored by another leading expert in the area, Prof. Gerald Spindler from the University of Göttingen/Germany. The title of it reads as follows: “The Internet and other emerging technologies within the EU and international legal order – aspects of conflicts of laws and international civil procedure”.

At the same time, the Judge of the Court of Appeal Mr. Ioannis Valmantonis has provided a comment on the decision of the CJEU in Gtflix v DR, while Dr. Apostolos Anthimos contributes his views on two Greek court decisions on the refusal of recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards ordering payment in bitcoin (Court of Appeal Western Central Greece 88/2021 and Court of First Instance of Agrinio, Single Chamber, 193/2018). Lastly, Dr. Evangelos Ziakas contributes a paper on the mosaic approach of the CJEU on internet related personality disputes.

Lex&Forum will return with a new issue, which will be focusing on the relationship of the EU Private International Law acquis with cases including third country elements.

Afin de justifier le renouvellement par l’État du contrôle aux frontières intérieures, le Conseil d’État définit de manière large la notion de « menace nouvelle grave » pour l’ordre public et la sécurité intérieure.

en lire plus

Les graves événements climatiques et militaires qui ont marqué les mois de juillet et août 2022 n’ont pas trop perturbé la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme qui s’est accordée comme d’ordinaire une trêve de quatre semaines à peine troublée par la nécessité d’indiquer des mesures provisoires dans des affaires d’une brûlante actualité. En juillet et fin août, elle a néanmoins rendu d’importants arrêts sur de graves questions récurrentes telles que les violences policières, les violences domestiques ou le traitement des migrants et sur des aspects parfois inattendus du droit au respect de la vie privée, de la liberté d’expression, du droit à un procès équitable ou du droit au respect des biens. Elle aura surtout eu l’occasion de mettre en lumière des figures procédurales encore peu connues comme la demande d’avis consultatif au titre du Protocole n° 16 et le recours en manquement exercé par le comité des ministres en cas de refus par un État de se conformer à un de ses arrêts définitifs qui a donné lieu au seul arrêt de grande chambre de la période étudiée et qui mérite d’être placé en exergue.

en lire plus

Par un arrêt du 7 juillet 2022, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne impose aux législations nationales la modalité de décompte des délais de recours contre certains actes signifiés ou notifiés en application du règlement du 13 novembre 2007.

en lire plus

The DynamInt Research Group at Humboldt University (located in the heart of Berlin, close to the Brandenburg Gate) invites international post-docs in the field of European law (broadly understood) to apply for a research stay lasting between 3 and 6 months.

Applications are excepted on a rolling basis (no deadline). Successful candidates will receive a financial allowance and will be provided with a fully equipped working place. It is possible to teach classes while staying at Humboldt University. However, teaching is not mandatory.

Further information is available here.

The Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations Series at Brill has just issued its 23rd volume, edited by Hannah Buxbaum.

The Centre for Studies and Research in International Law and International Relations of the Hague Academy of International Law is designed to bring together highly qualified young international lawyers from all over the world, to undertake original research on a common general theme which is determined annually by the Curatorium of the Academy. The Centre is sub-divided in an English-speaking and French-speaking section. The research undertaken at the Centre is published in a collective volume containing the reports of the Directors and the best contributions from the participants. In 2019, the Director was Hannah Buxbaum, and her fascinating cross-over topic was „extraterritoriality“.

The blurb reads as follows: „Extraterritoriality is a challenging concept as a matter of international law and policy, raising fundamental questions about the allocation of power among States. It is also a dynamic concept, reflecting and responding to shifts in the global economy, patterns of human behavior, and understandings of state sovereignty.“

Following the Reports of the Directors of Studies, no less than 20 chapters explore the notion and implications of extraterritoriality, either in French or in English language, such as e.g. the first Chapter by Buxbaum herself  on “The Practice(s) of Extraterritoriality” (for an SSRN preprint see here), “(Il)licéités et (dé)mesures de l’extraterritorialité”, several Chapters on historical aspects, “Objects and Subjects of Extraterritorialité”, “Extraterritorialité within the Framework of the EU” and other regional organisations, as well as aspects of extraterritoriality in certain areas of law such as in criminal law, cybersecurity, human rights, environmental law, outer space, data protection etc. “Throughout, the volume recognizes extraterritoriality as an expansive concept used to assess both the actions and the obligations of states within the international arena”, the blurb further explains.

Thus, the volume connects private and public international law perfectly and also includes interdisciplinary input. It thereby represents the spirit of the Hague Academy’s Centre for Studies and Research at its best. Highly recommended!

A similarly promising project is currently ongoing at the Centre: “Climate Change and the Testing of International Law” from 22 August – 9 September 2022.

 

The third issue of the Journal du droit international for 2022 was released in July. It contains two articles and several case notes relating to private international law issues.

In the first article, Caroline Kleiner (University of Paris Cité) discusses the private international law dimension of the sanctions against Russia (L‘application des « sanctions économiques » adoptées par l’Union européenne contre la Russie à la suite de l’invasion de l’Ukraine : éléments de droit international privé).

The English abstract reads:

The adoption of sanctions by the European Union is the main tool available to EU member states to react politically, legally and economically to Russia’s aggression against Ukraine. On an unprecedented scale, the sanctions initiated in 2014 in EU regulations following the annexation of Crimea and reinforced from 23 February 2022 are very diverse. On the one hand, restrictions of different intensity have been imposed on trade and financial matters. On the other hand, measures to freeze funds and economic resources are aimed at “target” persons and entities. These provisions, which are mandatory throughout the European Union and in respect of any economic activity carried out in whole or in part therein and in respect of any person who is a national of a Member State or who is incorporated under the law of a Member State, are being applied, however, according to a distinct mechanism. Sanctions-rule interfere with contracts as mandatory rules (lois de police), while the application of sanctions-decision is based on the method of recognition.

In the second article, Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon offers some thoughts on the recent draft code of private international law (Quelques réflexions sur le projet de Code français de droit international privé du 31 mars 2022).

The English abstract reads:

On 31 March 2022, a draft French Code of Private International Law was submitted to the Minister of Justice. This text was prepared by a group working under the chairmanship of Jean-Pierre Ancel (honorary president of the first civil chamber of the Court of Cassation). The project goes beyond what was requested in 2018 by Ms. Belloubet, Minister of Justice. Far from being a simple consolidation of the existing law, throughout its 207 articles, it proposes some new solutions and precise several acquired solutions. This article, after recalling the genesis of the project, shows the scope of the field covered, the plan adopted to deal with all issues of private international law, general theory of both conflicts of laws and conflicts of jurisdictions (jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement), special applications, proceedings, provisional measures, etc. However, the draft does not deal with international arbitration or jurisdictional immunities. Particularly interesting because the difficulty was high is the solution adopted to ensure the articulation between the French code and European law or international conventions : the primacy of European and conventional law is generally affirmed; then various articles contain numerous references to a particular European regulation or international convention. Sometimes the project extends the application of a European regulation to issues excluded by a regulation.

Without studying all the provisions of the project, this study draws the attention of the reader to particularly striking innovations : careful adoption of the method of recognition ; rejection of the distinction between available and unavailable rights and obligation for the judge to always apply the conflict rule ; full recognition of all foreign judgments without distinguishing according to their nature ; solutions proposed for divorce by private agreement ; new rules on filiation (rejection of the connection to the national law of the mother), medically assisted procreation with third-party donor, surrogacy, adoption. The important powers granted to the judge and the use of several flexible concepts should also be noticed (for example, procedural loyalty).

This study is intended to describe the project and to assess the importance of its future.

The table of contents of the issue can be accessed here.

The second issue of 2022 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Costanza Honorati, Professor at the University Milan-Bicocca, Giovanna Ricciardi, Doctoral candidate at the University Milan-Bicocca, Violenza domestica e protezione cross-border (Domestic Violence and Cross-Border Protection) [in Italian]

Domestic violence has drawn increasing attention both from the lawmaker and legal scholars. Legal means to prevent domestic violence and protect women have been promoted and implemented at the national and supranational levels. This article concentrates on seeking and enforcing civil protection measures in cross-border family conflicts. Protective measures are often sought and taken in the State where the prospective victim (and often also the tortfeasor) is habitually resident. PIL issues are however rarely addressed. Regulation (EU) No 606/2013 on mutual recognition of protection measures in civil matters provides a useful instrument when the need for recognition and enforcement in a different Member State arises at a later stage. Less dealt with is the issue of selecting an appropriate ground for jurisdiction, which is not governed by the mentioned Regulation. The latter issue becomes especially relevant in the very peculiar case of protection measures to be issued in the so-called State of refuge when a mother challenges a situation of domestic violence as a ground for leaving the State of a child’s habitual residence and searches for protection elsewhere. The interplay between domestic violence and abduction cases, a situation quite frequent in practice but rarely addressed in legal literature, is further explored and dealt with.

Ilaria Viarengo, Professor at the University Milan, The Coordination of Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Proceedings Related to Economic Aspects of Family Law

This article addresses the complex features and problems arising from the combined application of all European and international instruments dealing with divorce and the economic aspects of family law. The need to avoid litigation proceedings in different jurisdictions, entailing the duplication of proceedings and costs and the need to have divorce and all the financial aspects governed by the same law are of central importance from a practical point of view. This article provides an analysis of whether and to what extent these two needs can be satisfied with the combined application of the EU family law regulations at issue. Firstly, it deals with some general issues whose solution could have an impact on the coordination among all these instruments. Consequently, it examines the interplay among rules on jurisdiction and applicable law, including the role of party autonomy in pursuing coordination.

The following comment is also featured:

Curzio Fossati, Doctoral candidate at the University of Insubria, La residenza abituale nei regolamenti europei di diritto internazionale privato della famiglia alla luce della giurisprudenza della Corte di giustizia (Habitual Residence in EU Private International Law Regulations in Family Matters in View of the Case-Law of the Court of Justice) [in Italian]

This article deals with the concept of habitual residence, which is in widespread use in the EU Regulations in the field of family law. Firstly, the article gives an overview of these Regulations, and then it analyses the case-law of the CJEU on the criterion of habitual residence referred to children, deceased persons, and spouses. The contribution examines two fundamental elements of the concept of habitual residence identified both by CJEU and scholars: the objective element, i.e. a sufficiently stable presence of a person in a Member State, and the subjective element, i.e. the intention of the person concerned to establish the permanent or habitual centre of his or her interests in that place. The article also tries to identify the most suitable method of interpretation of the concept of habitual residence and, in particular, it investigates which approach is more desirable between a uniform approach (which fosters a uniform definition of habitual residence in EU law) and a functional one (which implies an interpretation that takes into account the aim of the disposition in which the concept is used). Ultimately, the Author endorses the solution adopted by the CJEU in the IB case, which combines the aforementioned approaches.

Finally, this issue features the following book review by Cristina M. Mariottini, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law: Henry Deeb GABRIEL, Contracts for the Sale of Goods – A Comparison of U.S. and International Law, 3rd ed., Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2022, pp. v-401.