Agrégateur de flux

By Yuchen Li, a PhD student at Wuhan University.

A. Introduction

An asymmetric choice of court agreement is commonly used in international commercial transactions, especially in financial agreements, which usually allows one party (option holder) an optional choice about the forum in which proceedings may be brought but the other (non-option holder) an exclusive choice to sue in a designated court.[1] A typical example is as follows:

 ‘(A) The courts of England have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes ….

(B) The Parties agree that the courts of England are the most appropriate and convenient courts … to settle Disputes and accordingly no Party will argue to the contrary.

(C) This Clause is for the benefit of the Finance Parties only. As a result, no Finance Party shall be prevented from taking proceedings relating to a Dispute in any other courts with jurisdiction. To the extent allowed by law, the Finance Parties may take concurrent proceedings in any number of jurisdictions.’ [2]

In recent years, issues concerning asymmetric choice of court agreements have been controversial in cases within some jurisdictions.[3] Despite the significant amount of research on asymmetric choice of court agreements, little attention has been paid to Chinese stance on this topic. With Chinese private parties actively engaging in international transactions, Chinese attitude towards such clauses is important for commercial parties and academic researchers. This article gives a glimpse of how Chinese courts handle asymmetric choice of court agreements in international and commercial civil litigations.[4]

B. Characterization

Chinese courts have demonstrated mainly four different views in characterizing asymmetric choice of court agreements.

Firstly, some courts classify this kind of agreement as asymmetric jurisdiction agreements.[5] In Hang Seng Bank Ltd. v. Shanghai Tiancheng Storage Co., Ltd. & Lin Jianhua, Shanghai Financial Court reasoned that a jurisdiction clause which allows one party to sue in multiple jurisdictions and requires the other to only bring the dispute to a specific jurisdiction should be characterized as an asymmetric jurisdiction clause.[6]

Second, several courts characterize the agreement as non-exclusive jurisdiction clause.[7] In Hwabao Trust Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Zhiyong, Shanghai High People’s Court observed that, according to the jurisdiction clause in issue, the option holder could either choose to initiate proceedings in the designated court or other competent courts, hence the clause is non-exclusive.[8]

Thirdly, it is notable that in GOOD VANTAGE SHIPPING LIMITED v. Chen Fuxiang et al, Xiamen Maritime Court classified the disputed clause as an ‘asymmetric exclusive jurisdiction clause’. The court held that, under the disputed clause, only when the option holder chooses to take the proceedings in the designated court will that court have exclusive jurisdiction, but this does not exclude the right of the option holder to sue in other competent courts.[9]

Last, a number of cases overlook the particularity of asymmetric choice of courts agreements and broadly classify them as jurisdiction agreements.[10]

C. Choice of Law

Most Chinese courts tend to apply lex fori on the effectiveness of asymmetric choice of court agreements. Relying on Article 270 of Chinese Civil Procedure Law (hereinafter referred to as ‘CPL’) which provides that this Law applies to foreign-related civil actions within PRC,[11] Chinese courts normally take the view that the ascertainment of jurisdiction is a procedural matter and apply lex fori.[12]

D. Effectiveness

a. Validity

By far, the validity of asymmetric choice of court agreements has not been addressed by Chinese legislation. However, in 2022, the Supreme People’s Court of PRC (hereinafter referred to as ‘SPC’) issued Summary of National Symposium on Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Trials of Courts (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Summary’). The Summary regulates that unless an asymmetric choice of court agreement involves the rights and interests of consumers and workers or violates CPL’s provisions on exclusive jurisdiction, the people’s court should reject the parties’ claim that the agreement is invalid on the ground of unconscionability. Although the Summary is not an official source of law, it serves as an important reference and guideline for courts in the absence of legislation.

Chinese courts generally support the view that an asymmetric choice of court agreement will not be deemed invalid for its asymmetry. The validity of such an agreement is commonly upheld for three reasons. First, such an agreement itself is not contrary to Chinese law.[13] In Winwin International Strategic Investment Funds Spc v. Chen Fanglin, Fujian High People’s court held that such a clause does not violate CPL and recognized its validity. [14] Second, party autonomy in civil and commercial litigations should be protected.[15] In Sun Jichuan v. Chen Jianbao, Beijing Fourth Intermediate People’s Court pointed out that CPL allows parties to a contract the right to select the court by agreement, which reflects party autonomy in civil procedure law. The aim of protecting this right is to safeguard that both parties are treated equally by the court, but this does not mean they have to choose the exact same court. As a result, a choice of court agreement is valid so long as it does not violate mandatory rules and expresses the true intention of the parties.[16] Third, it is necessary to mention that in a domestic case where the validity of an asymmetric choice of court clause in a loan contract is in dispute, Pudong New Area People’s Court of Shanghai analyzed the positions of both the borrower (non-option holder) and the bank (option holder) and concluded that the borrower’s position under an asymmetric jurisdiction clause is no weaker than under an exclusive one.[17]

In a small number of cases, Chinese courts refuse to recognize the validity of standard asymmetric choice of court agreements for violating specific rules of standard clause under Chinese law.[18] In Picc Xiamen Branch v. A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S, Zhejiang High People’s Court ruled that the disputed standard jurisdiction clause in the Bill of Lading lacks explicit, obvious forms to distinguish from other clauses, and the carrier (option holder) failed to establish that the jurisdiction clause had been negotiated with or given full notice and explanation to the shipper (non-option holder).[19] Therefore, if the drafting party fails to prompt or explain the standard asymmetric choice of court agreement to the other party, Chinese court may consider that this clause fails to represent the true intention of the parties and determine that the clause does not constitute a part of the contract.[20]

b. Effects

An asymmetric choice of court agreement has different effects upon option holder and non-option holder. For the non-option holder, the jurisdiction clause has an exclusive effect, restricting the party to taking the proceedings to the designated court only.[21]

As for the option holder, Chinese courts have two different explanations. On the one hand, an asymmetric choice of court agreement has both exclusive and non-exclusive effects on the option holder. While the designated court has exclusive jurisdiction when the option holder brings the case to the designated court, the option holder could also choose to sue the non-option holder in other competent courts.[22] On the other hand, some courts analyze that, apart from the designated court, the option holder could also sue in other competent courts, hence the clause is non-exclusive for the option holder. [23]

E. Construction

In Bank of Communications Trustee Ltd. v. China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Company Ltd., whether the jurisdiction clause in a guarantee agreement is an asymmetric one is in dispute. The clause provides:

The guarantor agrees (i) for the benefit of the trustee and bondholder, the courts of Hong Kong have exclusive jurisdiction to settle any disputes arising out of or relating to this Guarantee Agreement; (ii) the courts of Hong Kong are the most appropriate and convenient courts; and (iii) as a result, the guarantor will not argue that other courts are more appropriate or more convenient to accept service of process on its behalf.[24]

The SPC established that, when determining whether the parties’ agreement constitutes an asymmetric jurisdiction clause, the people’s court should construe the parties’ intention in a strict manner. The wording of the asymmetric choice of court clause should be clear and precise. The court reasoned as follows:

In general, contractual parties share equal rights and obligations, and therefore their rights regarding jurisdiction of litigation should also be equal. For this reason, their right to select a court should be the same unless the parties specifically agree otherwise. Under the principle of disposition of procedural rights, parties are allowed to agree on an asymmetric jurisdiction clause whereby one party’s right to choose the court is restricted while the other party is not. An asymmetric jurisdiction clause constitutes a significant, exceptional restriction on one party’s procedural rights, which should be determined through the parties’ clear and explicit intention. Otherwise, unequal or unfair rights and obligations shall not be presumed.[25]

Therefore, the SPC decided that the disputed jurisdiction clause is not an asymmetric one because it only highlights the exclusive jurisdiction of Hong Kong courts and doesn’t specify that the guarantee has the right to bring the proceedings to other competent courts.

F. Conclusion

It seems that Chinese courts take a liberal stance on asymmetric choice of court agreements, showing their respect to party autonomy and freedom to contract in international civil and commercial jurisdiction. In 2024, reviewed and approved by the SPC, two cases[26] recognizing the validity of asymmetric choice of court agreements are incorporated into the People’s Court Case Database as reference cases.[27] What’s more, as has been mentioned before, the Summary recognizes the validity of asymmetric choice of court agreements based on the assumption that those agreements are compatible with CPL’s provisions on exclusive jurisdiction or do not infringe certain weaker parties’ interests. Asymmetric choice of court agreements are ubiquitous in international civil and commercial contracts, especially in international financial contracts. Chinese courts are adapting to the development trends of international commercial practice and are getting prepared to deal with complicated civil and commercial disputes.

Nonetheless, there is still a long journey to go for Chinese courts to establish a sophisticated mechanism to handle such agreements. As for now, Chinese judicial practice regarding asymmetric choice of court agreements remains inconsistent. Additionally, most cases only involve simple disputes concerning whether Chinese courts have jurisdiction under such agreements. Things may get really complicated when other mechanisms in international civil procedure like lis pendens rule apply to such agreements. A proper solution to those issues relies on a unified and nuanced standard for courts to apply. Whether there will be a judicial interpretation or legislation regarding asymmetric choice of court agreements, and how Chinese courts will handle complex disputes related to such agreements remain to be observed in the future.

For practitioners, it is noteworthy that Chinese courts tend to apply lex fori on asymmetric choice of court agreements. The asymmetric nature of the jurisdiction clause should be precisely and clearly expressed. Additionally, if the asymmetric choice of court agreement is a standard one, under the Civil Code of PRC, it is suggested that the drafting party, when concluding a contract, should prompt the jurisdiction clause through conspicuous indicators such as distinctive words, symbols, or fonts that are sufficient to bring the clause to the other party’s attention. Upon the other party’s request, the drafting party should also fully explain the jurisdiction clause to the other party.

 

[1] See Mary Keyes and Brooke Adele Marshall, ‘Jurisdiction agreements: Exclusive, Optional and Asymmetrical’ (2015) 11 Journal of Private International Law 345, 349.

[2] See Louise Merrett, ‘The Future Enforcement of Asymmetric Jurisdiction Agreements’ (2018) 67 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 37, 40-41.

[3] See e.g., Ms X v. Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild Europe (Societe), French Cour de cassation (Supreme Court) (First Civil Chamber) September 2012, Case 11-26.022, Commerzbank Aktiengesellschaft v Pauline Shipping Limited and Liquimar Tankers Management Inc [2017] EWHC 161 (Comm).

[4] Although asymmetric choice of court agreements may take various forms, the typical example abovementioned in note 2 is the most common type in practice. Therefore, asymmetric choice of court agreements in this article only refer to agreements under which one party may bring proceedings only in the chosen court but the other party may bring proceedings in other courts as well. See Brooke Marshall, Asymmetric Jurisdiction Clauses, (Oxford University Press 2023) 17; Trevor Hartley & Masato Dogauchi, Explanatory Report on the Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements (HCCH Publications 2013) 85.

[5] See Hang Seng Bank Ltd. v. Shanghai Tiancheng Storage Co., Ltd. & Lin Jianhua, (2019) Hu 74 Min Chu 127 Hao [(2019)?74??127?]; Sun Jichuan v. Chen Jianbao, (2021) Jing Min Xia Zhong 76 Hao [(2021)????76?]; XYZ Co. v. Chen & Su, (2022) Lu Min Zhong 567 Hao [(2022)???567?].

[6] See Hang Seng Bank Ltd. v. Shanghai Tiancheng Storage Co. Ltd. & Lin Jianhua, (2019) Hu 74 Min Chu 127 Hao [(2019)?74??127?], paras. 94.

[7] See DBS Bank (Hong Kong) Limited v. Forward (Zhaoqing) Semiconductor Co., Ltd. et al, (2011) Yue Gao Fa Li Min Zhong Zi Di 82 Hao [(2011)????????82?]; Suen Kawi Kam v China Dragon Select Growth Fund, (2019) Jing Min Xia Zhong 279 Hao [(2019)????279?]; Hwabao Trust Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Zhiyong, (2021) Hu Min Xia Zhong 60 Hao [(2021)????60?].

[8] See Hwabao Trust Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Zhiyong, (2021) Hu Min Xia Zhong 60 Hao [(2021)????60?], para. 10.

[9] See GOOD VANTAGE SHIPPING LIMITED v. Chen Fuxiang et al, (2020) Min 72 Min Chu 239 Hao [(2020)?72??239?], paras. 13, 15.

[10] See Beijing Huahai Machinery Co., Ltd. v. KAMAT GmbH & Co. KG, (2017) Jing 02 Min Zhong 4019 Hao [(2017)?02??4019?]; Winwin International Strategic Investment Funds Spc v. Chen Fanglin, (2019) Min Min Xia Zhong 151 Hao [(2019)????151?]; Antwerp Diamond Bank v. Weinstock Michel, (2013) Yue Gao Fa Li Min Zhong Zi Di 467 Hao [(2013)????????467?]; Guosen Securities (Hong Kong) Financial Holdings Co., Ltd v. Yunnan Zhongyuan Industrial Group Co., Ltd. et al, (2017) Zui Gao Fa Min Xia Zhong 423 Hao [(2017)??????423?]; Picc Xiamen Branch v. A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S, (2017) Zhe Min Xia Zhong 119 Hao [(2017)????119?]; Zhu Yuquan v. AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd, (2021) Jing Min Zhong 893 Hao [(2021)???893?].

[11] Article 270 of CPL provides: ‘This Part (Part 4 of CPL, Special Provisions on Foreign-Related Civil Procedures) shall apply to foreign-related civil actions within the People’s Republic of China. For issues not addressed in this Part, other provisions of this Law shall apply.’

[12] See Antwerp Diamond Bank v. Weinstock Michel, (2013) Yue Gao Fa Li Min Zhong Zi Di 467 Hao [(2013)????????467?]; Suen Kawi Kam v. China Dragon Select Growth Fund, (2019) Jing Min Xia Zhong 279 Hao [(2019)????279?]; GOOD VANTAGE SHIPPING LIMITED v. Chen Fuxiang et al, (2020) Min 72 Min Chu 239 Hao [(2020)?72??239?]; Hwabao Trust Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Zhiyong, (2021) Hu Min Xia Zhong 60 Hao [(2021)????60?]; Guosen Securities (Hong Kong) Financial Holdings Co., Ltd v. Yunnan Zhongyuan Industrial Group Co., Ltd. et al, (2017) Zui Gao Fa Min Xia Zhong 423 Hao [(2017)??????423?]; Picc Xiamen Branch v. A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S, (2017) Zhe Min Xia Zhong 119 Hao [(2017)????119?]; Zhu Yuquan v. AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd, (2021) Jing Min Zhong 893 Hao [(2021)???893?].

[13] See e.g. Sun Jichuan v. Chen Jianbao, (2021) Jing Min Xia Zhong 76 Hao [(2021)????76?]; XYZ Co. v. Chen & Su, (2022) Lu Min Zhong 567 Hao [(2022)???567?]; GOOD VANTAGE SHIPPING LIMITED v. Chen Fuxiang et al, (2020) Min 72 Min Chu 239 Hao [(2020)?72??239?]; Zhu Yuquan v. AxiCorp Financial Services Pty Ltd, (2021) Jing Min Zhong 893 Hao [(2021)???893?].

[14] See Winwin International Strategic Investment Funds Spc v. Chen Fanglin, (2019) Min Min Xia Zhong 151 Hao [(2019)????151?], para. 2.

[15] See Antwerp Diamond Bank v. Weinstock Michel, (2013) Yue Gao Fa Li Min Zhong Zi Di 467 Hao [(2013)????????467?]; Sun Jichuan v. Chen Jianbao, (2021) Jing Min Xia Zhong 76 Hao [(2021)????76?].

[16] See Sun Jichuan v. Chen Jianbao, (2021) Jing Min Xia Zhong 76 Hao [(2021)????76?], para. 15.

[17] ‘On the one hand, the borrower’s exclusive choice could facilitate the enforcement of judgements. On the other hand, the bank’s right to choose the competent court could reduce commercial costs, which will eventually benefit ordinary clients (including the borrower). In this sense, the borrower’s position is no weaker than under an exclusive jurisdiction clause.’ See Bank of Tianjin CO., LTD. Shanghai Branch v. Gong Chongfang et al, (2022) Hu 0115 Min Chu 87551 Hao [(2022)?0115??87551?], para. 7.

[18] See Shaoxing Haoyi Trading Co., Ltd. v. GMA-CDMS et al, (2016) Zhe Min Xia Zhong [(2016)????294?]; Picc Xiamen Branch v. A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S, (2017) Zhe Min Xia Zhong 119 Hao [(2017)????119?].

[19] See Picc Xiamen Branch v. A.P. Moller – Maersk A/S, (2017) Zhe Min Xia Zhong 119 Hao [(2017)????119?], para. 10.

[20] Article 496, paragraph 2 of the Civil Code of PRC provides: ‘Upon concluding a contract, where a standard clause is used, the party providing the standard clause shall determine the parties’ rights and obligations in compliance with the principle of fairness, and shall, in a reasonable manner, call the other party’s attention to the clause concerning the other party’s major interests and concerns, such as a clause that exempts or alleviates the liability of the party providing the standard clause, and give explanations of such clause upon request of the other party. Where the party providing the standard clause fails to perform the aforementioned obligation of calling attention or giving explanations, thus resulting in the other party’s failure to pay attention to or understand the clause concerning its major interests and concerns, the other party may claim that such clause does not become part of the contract.’ See Civil Code of the People’s Republic of China, The State Council of the People’s Republic of China, https://english.www.gov.cn/archive/lawsregulations/202012/31/content_WS5fedad98c6d0f72576943005.html, visited on 10th March, 2025.

[21] See Sun Jichuan v. Chen Jianbao, (2021) Jing Min Xia Zhong 76 Hao [(2021)????76?].

[22] See Winwin International Strategic Investment Funds Spc v. Chen Fanglin, (2019) Min Min Xia Zhong 151 Hao [(2019)????151?]; GOOD VANTAGE SHIPPING LIMITED v. Chen Fuxiang et al, (2020) Min 72 Min Chu 239 Hao [(2020)?72??239?].

[23] See Suen Kawi Kam v. China Dragon Select Growth Fund, (2019) Jing Min Xia Zhong 279 Hao [(2019)????279?]; Hwabao Trust Co., Ltd. v. Xiao Zhiyong, (2021) Hu Min Xia Zhong 60 Hao [(2021)????60?].

[24] See Bank of Communications Trustee Ltd. v. China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Company Ltd., (2021) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai 277 Hao [(2021)?????277?], para. 25.

[25] See Bank of Communications Trustee Ltd. v. China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Company Ltd., (2021) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai 277 Hao [(2021)?????277?], para. 26.

[26] See Bank of Communications Trustee Ltd. v. China Energy Reserve and Chemicals Group Company Ltd., (2021) Zui Gao Fa Min Zai 277 Hao [(2021)?????277?]; XYZ Co. v. Chen & Su, (2022) Lu Min Zhong 567 Hao [(2022)???567?].

[27] According to Article 19 of Procedures for the Construction and Operation of the People’s Court Case Database, the people’s courts should refer to similar cases of the Database when hearing cases. However, this reference may not be used as a basis of the adjudication. See Susan Finder, Update on the People’s Court Case Database, Supreme People’s Court Monitor, https://supremepeoplescourtmonitor.com/2024/12/, visited on 26th February 2025.

Limitation period of the enforcement of a UK judgment in Greece

A judgment issued by the Division of Maritime Disputes of the Piraeus first instance court at the end of last year [nr. 3400/2024, unreported] was confronted with an issue which seldomly appears before Greek courts.

The issue raised before the Piraeus Court of First Instance, in the context of Regulation 44/01, was the following: Is it permissible to revoke the recognition of a foreign (English) judgment (order) that  was declared  enforceable in Greece, when allegedly it is no longer enforceable in the State of origin?

The court approached the case from three perspectives:

Firstly, it clarified that a decision of the Supreme Court issued five years ago [Areios Pagos nr. 767/2019], allowing the revocation of the enforceability of a foreign judgment under similar circumstances according to Greek law, cannot be considered as relevant precedent, because it concerned a US judgment, and not a decision of an EU Member State court of law.

It then examined and highlighted the relevant jurisprudence of the CJEU, which ratione materiae resembles to the dispute at issue, i.e., under the Brussels I regime. It stressed that revocation of enforceability under Reg. 44/01 is strictly allowed for specified grounds only, with the case at hand, i.e., loss of enforceability in the state of origin, not being such a ground. The party against whom enforcement is sought in the executing Member State, could raise such a ground, only in the context of enforcement proceedings in the executing state, the court clarified.

Finally, it went into a detailed analysis and reference to the defences against enforcement under English law, focusing on the provisions of the UK Civil Procedure Rules and the Limitation Act, and identifying relevant case law of the English courts. Relevantly, the Piraeus court rejected in substance the arguments raised by the applicants, noting that under English law the judgment of the English court at hand had not lost its enforceability in principle, but rather that special conditions must be met for enforcement in UK to be authorised (i.e., existence of property there, not previously found). Juxtaposing English and Greek law, the Piraeus court made the distinction of enforceability of judgments and the existence of additional modalities, procedures or preconditions that must be fulfilled for enforcement proceedings to take place.

This is one of the rare decisions published by Greek courts, which demonstrates the potential complexity of the subject matter under the Brussels I Regulation, which reappears sporadically, although it gave way to Regulation 1215/2012 some ten years ago.

The specificity of the case lies in the distinctive time of its occurrence: the ground of refusal did not occur at one of the exequatur stages [application to declare enforceability, appeal, second appeal], but much later, when the remedies under Brussels I before the courts of the state of execution have been unsuccessfully exhausted by the debtor.

The likelihood of similar situations occurring under the current regime of Regulation Brussels I bis is scarce. In this case, the judgment debtor is left with either the opposition (stay of execution) under Article 933 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure, or the filing of a negative declaratory action, in case the enforcement procedure has not been initiated by the judgment creditor.

Finally, let us not forget that the United Kingdom has left the European Union, and, for the time being, there is no direct commencement of enforcement in Greek territory, such as the model of Regulation nr. 1215/2012, not even the previous system of exequatur under EU Regulation nr. 44/2001. A new corridor is expected to open later this year, given that the UK has ratified the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

For further reading on the issue, see Requejo-Isidro(-Chiapponi), Brussels I bis, A Commentary on Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 (2022), Art. 41, nos. 41.22 et seq, Althammer, in: Simons/Hausmann, Brussels I Regulation – Kommentar zur VO (?G) 44/2001 und zum Übereinkommen von Lugano, Unalex Kommentar (2012), Art. 38, nos. 26 & 29); Geimer/Schütze, Europäisches Zivilverfahrensrecht (3rd ed., 2010), Art. 41, no. 44 et seq.

Hot off the press and published in the Cambridge Law Journal, the article “The Inference of Similarity,” written by Marcus Teo, delves into the intricacies of what has traditionally been referred to as the “presumption of similarity” in English legal proceedings. Teo’s work challenges the conventional understanding of this presumption, arguing that it should be seen not as a true presumption but rather as an inference that courts can draw under certain circumstances.

Teo begins by outlining the challenges litigants who wish to rely on foreign law in English courts face. They must first demonstrate that the relevant choice-of-law rule selects the foreign law as applicable and then prove that the foreign law supports their claim or defence. This task is often complicated by the patchy or vague nature of foreign law evidence, leading courts to apply what has been termed a “presumption of similarity”—the idea that foreign law is presumed similar to English law when not sufficiently proven.

However, Teo argues that this “presumption” is misleading. The paper contends that it should not be understood as a true presumption but rather as an inference that courts can draw when there is reliable evidence to suggest that English and foreign courts would render similar rulings on the same facts. This distinction is crucial because a true presumption would be unprincipled, lacking the justifications of logic, convenience, and policy that support other legal presumptions.

Teo’s paper further explores the nature of legal presumptions and inferences, providing a detailed analysis of how they function within the legal system. He explains that legal presumptions are meant to facilitate practical reasoning in situations of evidential uncertainty, allowing courts to proceed “as if” a presumed fact exists until contrary evidence is presented. In contrast, inferences are conclusions drawn from sufficient evidence, representing an actual belief that the inferred fact exists.

The paper also addresses the implications of understanding the “presumption of similarity” as an inference rather than a true presumption. Teo argues that this understanding resolves various controversies surrounding its use in civil proceedings and does not render the proof of foreign law unpredictable or inconvenient in practice. The author emphasises that courts should aim to replicate the ruling a foreign court would render on similar facts, and when English law reflects a shared tradition or universal ethos, this may be enough to infer that a foreign court would render a similar ruling.

Teo’s insights have significant doctrinal implications, particularly in cases where foreign law is partially proven. He explains that when a party has proven only part of the foreign law, the inference of similarity can still be drawn if the court can reliably conclude that the foreign court would likely render a ruling similar to English law’s. This approach prevents parties from using the presumption as a tactical move to fill gaps in their foreign law evidence.

Marcus Teo’s paper offers a fresh perspective on the “presumption of similarity” in English law, advocating for a more nuanced understanding of it as an inference. This shift in perspective not only clarifies the role of foreign law in English courts but also ensures that the application of foreign law aligns with the substantive values underlying choice-of-law rules. As legal scholars and practitioners continue to grapple with the complexities of foreign law, Teo’s work provides a valuable framework for navigating these challenges.

For those interested, the article may be found here!

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. Since 2024, RabelsZ has been an open access publication, with all articles freely available to readers online. The focal point of the first issue of 2025 is international and comparative family law, with contributions critically examining the interactions between […]

En vertu des dispositions de l’article 18 du règlement (UE) n° 2015/848 du 20 mai 2015 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité ainsi que des principes édictés en droit français par les articles L. 622-21, I (arrêt des poursuites individuelles) et L. 622-22 du code de commerce (interruption des instances en cours), l’instance en cours en France est interrompue en cas d’ouverture d’une procédure d’insolvabilité sur le territoire d’un autre État membre. Sa reprise demeure subordonnée à la déclaration de la créance du créancier poursuivant au passif de la procédure d’insolvabilité étrangère. L’instance ainsi reprise ne peut alors tendre qu’à la fixation du montant de la créance.

en lire plus

Audience solennelle d'éloges funèbres à la mémoire de M. Uno Lõhmus et de Mme Ena Cremona

Deldits
Principes du droit communautaire
RGPD et transidentité : la rectification de données relatives à l’identité de genre ne peut être subordonnée à la preuve d’un traitement chirurgical

Shuvalov / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Guerre en Ukraine : la Cour de justice confirme les mesures restrictives adoptées contre M. Igor Shuvalov, ancien vice-Premier ministre du gouvernement russe

Louise Ellen Teitz (Roger Williams University School of Law) has posted Harmonizing Private International Law and International Private Law Through Softlaw on SSRN. The abstract of the article, a homage to Symeon Symeonides and set to be published in the Willamette Law Review, reads as follows: This article, prepared for a celebration of the career […]

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a conclu à la violation de l’article 2 de la Convention européenne (droit à la vie) dans son volet matériel à la suite du décès de Rémi Fraisse lors des opérations de maintien de l’ordre sur le site de Sivens.

en lire plus

ConflictofLaws.net is happy to announce Saloni Khanderia from Jindal Global Law School as our new General Editor. Saloni joined the blog’s Editorial Board in 2019 and has been an active contributor ever since. She takes over from Jeanne Huang (University of Sydney) and will serve as the blog’s General Editor together with Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg).

The Editorial Board is indebted to Jeanne for her over two years of service as General Editor. During her tenure, important changes have been implemented regarding the blog’s operation, including the redesign of our frontpage with the new calendar feature. At the same time, our community has continued to grow to more than 2,5k subscribers of our e-mail newsletter and 5k followers on LinkedIn. We’re deeply grateful for the time and energy she has dedicated to the blog and are delighted that she will stay on the Editorial Board.

Semedo / Parlement
Statut des fonctionnaires
Plainte pour harcèlement visant une ancienne membre du Parlement européen : le constat de harcèlement et la sanction prononcée par la présidente du Parlement sont annulés, au motif que les droits de la défense n’ont pas été respectés

On 4 March 2025, Prof. Thomas Kadner-Graziano presented publicly on line the project of research and the achievements to date of the EAPIL’s Working Group on the Feasibility of a European Private International Law Act (to which I belong). A few days earlier, the EAPIL blog had informed about an article of Prof. K. Boele-Woelki […]

La juridiction de l’État membre du domicile du défendeur demeure compétente pour connaître de l’action principale en contrefaçon d’un brevet délivré ou validé dans un autre État membre, même si le défendeur conteste, par voie d’exception, la validité de ce titre. En revanche, l’article 24, § 4, du règlement (UE) n° 1215/2012 du 12 décembre 2012 dit règlement « Bruxelles I bis », ne s’applique pas et n’attribue aucune compétence exclusive à une juridiction d’un État tiers. Par conséquent, si la validité d’un brevet délivré dans un État tiers est contestée par voie d’exception devant le tribunal de l’État membre du domicile du défendeur saisi de l’action principale en contrefaçon, ce dernier peut, en principe, connaître à la fois de l’exception de nullité et de cette action en contrefaçon.  

en lire plus

Le terme « entreprise », figurant à l’article 83, §§ 4 à 6, du règlement (UE) 2016/679 du Parlement européen et du Conseil, du 27 avril 2016, relatif à la protection des personnes physiques à l’égard du traitement des données à caractère personnel et à la libre circulation de ces données (RGPD), correspond à la notion d’« entreprise », au sens des articles 101 et 102 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE), de sorte que, lorsqu’une amende pour violation du règlement (UE) 2016/679 est imposée à un responsable du traitement de données à caractère personnel, qui est ou fait partie d’une entreprise, le montant maximal de l’amende est déterminé sur la base d’un pourcentage du chiffre d’affaires annuel mondial total de l’exercice précédent de l’entreprise. La notion d’« entreprise » doit également être prise en compte afin d’apprécier la capacité économique réelle ou matérielle du destinataire de l’amende et ainsi vérifier si l’amende est à la fois effective, proportionnée et dissuasive.

en lire plus

Lorsque l’arrêt du Tribunal de l’Union européenne est rendu à la suite d’un débat contradictoire entre certaines parties et par défaut à l’égard d’une autre partie défenderesse défaillante, le recours en opposition n’est ouvert qu’à celle-ci, contre les seuls points du dispositif de cet arrêt qui la concernent. Les autres points du dispositif dudit arrêt qui concernent les parties défenderesses autres que cette partie défenderesse défaillante constituent une décision « mettant fin à l’instance » (…) et ne peuvent faire l’objet d’une opposition ». Dès lors, le pourvoi devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne est ouvert.

L’interprétation du contrat étant, d’abord, une recherche de l’intention commune des parties et le contrat lui-même ne contenant aucun principe de couverture intégrale, rien n’impose que l’exclusion de couverture soit interprétée strictement.
 

en lire plus

Commission / Pologne (Contrôle ultra vires de la jurisprudence de la Cour de justice par une cour constitutionnelle)
État de droit : l’avocat général Spielmann considère que le recours de la Commission européenne concernant la Cour constitutionnelle polonaise est fondé

The UK Supreme Court judgment in UniCredit Bank GmbH v RusChemAlliance LLC [2024] UKSC 30, upholding an anti-suit injunction restraining Russian proceedings brought in violation of an arbitration agreement providing for a seat in France, has caused significant interest. We covered it on the EAPIL Blog in a post noting the judgment and in a […]

By Sophia Tang, Wuhan University

 

China’s New Civil Procedure Law adopted in 2023 and taking effect from 1 Jan 2024 introduces significant changes to the previous civil procedure law regarding cross-border litigation. One of the key changes pertains to choice of court agreements. In the past, Chinese law on choice of court agreements has been criticized for being outdated and inconsistent with international common practice, particularly because it requires choice of court clauses to be in writing and mandates that the chosen court must have “practical connections” with the dispute. After China signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention, there was hope that China might reform its domestic law to align with the Hague Convention’s terms and eventually ratify the Convention.

 

The New Civil Procedure Law retains the old provision on choice of court agreements, stating that parties can choose a court with practical connections to the dispute in writing (Article 35). This provision is included in the chapter dealing with jurisdiction in domestic cases, but traditionally, Chinese courts have applied the same requirements to choice of court clauses in cross-border cases.

 

The 2023 Amendment to the Civil Procedure Law introduces Article 277 as a new provision specifically addressing choice of court agreements in cross-border cases. It states that if parties in cross-border civil disputes choose Chinese courts in writing, Chinese courts will have jurisdiction. Notably, this provision does not require that the chosen Chinese courts have practical connections with the dispute. In other words, it may imply that when parties in cross-border disputes choose Chinese courts, Chinese courts will accept jurisdiction regardless of whether they have any connection to the dispute. The removal of the practical connection requirement is intended to encourage overseas parties to choose Chinese courts as a neutral forum for resolving disputes. This is a crucial step in enhancing the international reception of the Chinese International Commercial Court (CICC) and advancing China’s goal of becoming a dispute resolution hub for Belt and Road initiatives.

 

This change aligns with the Hague Choice of Court Convention, which respects party autonomy and reduces the requirements for making parties’ consent to the competent court effective. Additionally, the New Civil Procedure Law prevents Chinese courts from declining jurisdiction based on forum non conveniens (Art 282(2)) or lis pendens (Art 281(1)) when a choice of Chinese court clause exists, consistent with the duty of the chosen state under Article 5(2) of the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

 

However, controversy remains. Since Article 277 explicitly applies to situations where Chinese courts are chosen, it does not address the choice of foreign courts. The New Civil Procedure Law does not include a specific provision addressing the prerequisites for choosing foreign courts. It is likely that the prerequisites for choosing foreign courts will follow the general rule on prorogation jurisdiction in Article 35. Pursuant to this interpretation, if parties choose a foreign court, the choice is valid only if it is made in writing and the chosen court has practical connections with the dispute. This creates an asymmetric system in international jurisdiction, making it easier for parties to choose Chinese courts than foreign courts. It leaves room for Chinese court to compete with a chosen foreign court, which may demonstrate China’s policy to promote the international influence of Chinese courts and to protect the jurisdiction of Chinese courts in China-related disputes.

 

This asymmetric system is barely compatible with the Hague Choice of Court Convention, which is based on reciprocity. If China ratifies the Hague Convention, the asymmetric system cannot function effectively. Under Article 6 of the Convention, a non-chosen court of a Contracting State must suspend or dismiss proceedings. Even if a choice of foreign court clause is invalid under Chinese law, it would not meet any of the exceptional grounds listed in Article 6. The lack of a practical connection with the chosen court cannot be interpreted as leading to a “manifest injustice” or being “manifestly contrary to the public policy” of China.

 

Of course, because the New Civil Procedure Law does not clarify the prerequisites for choosing foreign courts, alternative interpretations are possible. Article 280 provides that if parties conclude an exclusive choice of court clause selecting a foreign court, and this choice does not violate Chinese exclusive jurisdiction or affect China’s sovereignty, security, and public interest, Chinese courts may decline jurisdiction if the same dispute has been brought before them. This suggests that China does not intend to create a significant difference between the choice of foreign and Chinese courts. If this is indeed the legislative intention, one alternative interpretation is that Article 35 should apply exclusively to choice of court clauses in domestic proceedings. In the absence of clear rules governing choice of foreign court clauses in cross-border proceedings, this situation can be analogized to the choice of Chinese courts in such proceedings. Consequently, the same conditions outlined in Article 277 should apply equally to the choice of foreign courts. This interpretation would enhance the law’s compatibility with the Hague Choice of Court Convention.

 

It is not yet clear which interpretation will ultimately be accepted. The Supreme People’s Court (SPC) should provide judicial guidance on this matter. Hopefully, bearing in mind the possibility of ratifying the Hague Choice of Court Convention, the SPC will adopt the second interpretation to pave the way for China’s ratification of the Convention

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a été invitée à se prononcer sur la compatibilité avec le principe d’effectivité de l’Union des dispositions d’une réglementation nationale relative à une action groupée en recouvrement, dont l’interprétation par le juge national faisait obstacle à sa mise en œuvre en matière de concurrence. À cet égard, elle considère qu’il appartient au juge national de laisser ces dispositions inappliquées seulement si, à l’issue d’une vérification par ce dernier, il apparaît : d’une part, qu’aucun autre mécanisme d’action collective n’est disponible et, d’autre part, que les conditions de mise en œuvre d’une action individuelle rendent impossible ou excessivement difficile l’exercice du droit à réparation.

en lire plus