Agrégateur de flux

This post was written by Paul Eichmüller and Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld, University of Vienna.

In a recent decision, the Austrian Supreme Court dealt with the interpretation of Article 10(2) of the Succession Regulation. It found that the latter provision does not establish an obligation to initiate probate proceedings ex officio in states having subsidiary jurisdiction. A national Austrian provision concerning the issue of these assets to third countries was thus considered in conformity with EU law, although Article 10(2) explicitly provides that the Member State shall have “jurisdiction to rule on those assets”. The court’s apparent classification of these questions as an acte clair is doubtful.

Facts

The Austrian courts were seized by a Canadian company. It was tasked by the Canadian courts to manage the estate of a German citizen, who had moved to Toronto where he established his habitual residence and eventually died in 2017. The deceased had a bank account in Austria where he and his son had jointly rented two safes containing gold “of substantial value”. The Canadian company then brought a request that the gold and the savings should be transferred to it so that it may become part of the general estate in Canada. However, the son opposed this request with regard to the gold on the basis that it was in fact in his own property and not in the deceased’s.

The court of first instance decided to transfer the money and the gold to the Canadian company, which was to hand it to the heirs as assessed in Canada. Concerning jurisdiction, the court based its decision on Article 10(2) of the Succession Regulation. The fact that it simply transferred the assets and did not conduct substantive probate proceedings was based on § 150 AußStrG (Austrian Non-Contentious Civil Procedure Act) – prescribing exactly this course of action in cases of Article 10(2) of the Succession Regulation. Appealing this decision, the son desired a full rejection of the claim on the grounds that § 150 AußStrG would be contrary to Article 10(2) and is thus not to be applied. The gold and the money should be handed to the heirs by Austrian courts themselves and not simply be transferred to the Canadian authorities (i.e. the authorised company).

The Decision by the Austrian Supreme Court

The Supreme Court ruled that issuing assets of the estate located in Austria, as long as no probate proceedings have been requested, does not violate Article 10(2) of the Regulation. This is laid down in § 150 AußStrG, which prescribes that upon request of a legitimised party, the assets must be transferred to the state in which the deceased had their last habitual residence. Its main argument was that the Succession Regulation does not oblige the competent Member States to initiate proceedings ex officio (para 31; also citing Hertel in Rauscher, EuZPR-EuIPR [2016] Art 23 EuErbVO para 49).

Furthermore, the objective of Article 10(2) of the Succession Regulation would not be thwarted by the Austrian provision, since § 150 AußStrG provides for the issue of assets only if no application for probate proceedings in Austria had been filed. Thus, the legal interests of the parties are protected and the subsidiary jurisdiction stipulated in Article 10(2) is respected. Issuing the assets would be a mere recognition of the foreign (Canadian) decision which legitimised the company to demand their transfer. As this decision originates in a third country, neither the Succession Regulation nor other acts of EU law are inapplicable to such a recognition (para 21).

The Supreme Court considered this assessment of the legal situation and the conformity with EU law to be sufficiently evident, so that a request for a preliminary ruling to the CJEU was not deemed necessary.

Assessment

To the extent that the jurisdiction established by Article 10(2) of the Succession Regulation is not combined with an obligation to initiate probate proceedings ex officio, the Supreme Court’s decision is to be followed.

In this respect, the procedural autonomy of the Member States is not restricted by EU law, thus the Regulation does not specify whether proceedings ought to be initiated either of the court’s own motion or upon application. The Regulation recognises the different procedural treatment of succession cases in the Member States, which is explicitly outlined, e.g., in Recital 29 (“Where succession proceedings are not opened by a court of its own motion”) and Article 14(c) (“if the proceedings are opened of the court’s own motion”) of the Succession Regulation. Hence, in contrast to probate proceedings in Austria, which are always initiated ex officio, other Member States (such as e.g. Germany, Belgium or Sweden) provide for the transfer of assets to the heirs ex lege without any proceedings being necessary. Therefore, a provision which prescribes that probate proceedings are initiated only on application in all cases where jurisdiction is based on Article 10(2) of the Succession Regulation (such as § 143 AußStrG in Austria) does indeed not violate EU law.

However, by issuing the gold and the savings to Canada, the Austrian authorities effectively transfer the jurisdiction for substantive probate proceedings over these assets to the Canadian authorities. This rejection of the Austrian jurisdiction over the assets located in its territory would happen outside the system of the Succession Regulation – which provides a transfer of jurisdiction in the cases listed in Article 6, but not whenever the court chooses to do so.

While the Succession Regulation does not prescribe how jurisdiction shall be exercised by a particular Member State, it does indeed prescribe that it must be exercised. The Austrian Supreme Court reasons that such a transfer is permissible because it does not interfere with the objectives of the regulation, as the alleged heirs could have brought a request to hold probate proceedings in Austria before anyway (para 27, 33). Yet, it thereby neglects that the transfer of jurisdiction would be final and thus deprives the heirs of the possibility to request proceedings in Austria at a later point in time. The Austrian courts may well choose to remain inactive until proceedings are requested, but then they have to remain exactly that – inactive. Hence, § 150 AußStrG – prescribing the opposite – is incompatible with EU law. While there might well be a case to see this differently, these arguments and the extensive criticism that has justly been raised about this issue by numerous respected Austrian scholars would have at least required a preliminary reference and leave the issue for the CJEU to decide.

The other reason given by the Supreme Court in support of its decision is the fact that it is bound by the recognition of the Canadian (third-state) judgment, which as such falls outside the scope of the Succession Regulation. Yet even when starting from the premise that the Canadian decision needs to be recognised, this will not necessarily result in an obligation of the Austrian authorities to transfer to the assets to Canada.

The decision of the Canadian Court confers upon the company the right (and duty) to collect the deceased’s assets as the estate trustee (para 2) – which is the standard for succession cases in Ontario. However, it did not directly decide on how the succession affects the assets. Recognising the company’s authorisation to receive the assets (i.e. its right of action) is only one of the requirements that need to be fulfilled so that the assets can be transferred to Canada. Yet, the Austrian courts still have to assess whether issuing the assets to a third state is consistent with Austrian law (including EU law).

The analysis shows that the legal question is far from clear and a preliminary reference to the CJEU would therefore have been necessary. While the Supreme Court was correct in its assessment that an ex officio initiation of probate proceedings is not required by the succession regulation, the rest of its judgment cannot be followed from this premise.

En cas de recours à des travailleurs détachés, le maître d’ouvrage ou le donneur d’ordre est tenu envers son cocontractant à une obligation de vigilance. Dans un arrêt du 11 février, le Conseil d’État précise la portée de cette obligation et la sanction en cas de manquement.

en lire plus

Saisi d’une demande d’avis par le tribunal administratif de Nantes, le Conseil d’État vient de préciser les conditions de délivrance d’un visa de long séjour en qualité d’étudiant.

en lire plus

Par un arrêt du 10 février 2022, la Cour de justice se prononce sur la définition du contrat ayant pour objet un droit réel immobilier et du contrat de bail d’immeuble au sens de l’article 6, paragraphe 4, sous c), du règlement Rome I.

en lire plus

A new series of webinars on the application of the EU Succession Regulation in the Member States will be organised in the framework of the ELI SiG Family and Succession Law. In five webinars of two hours each, representatives of the Member States will talk about their experiences within their respective legal systems.

The organizers state the objectives of the event series as follows (emphasis added):

 

“Join us for the webinar series on the ‘Application of the EU Succession Regulation in the Member States’! 

The five webinars organized within the Special Interest Group on Family and Succession Law of the European Law Institute will take place between March and June 2022 and shall shed light on the actual practice regarding cross border succession cases in the Member States. The reporters will open the webinars with short introductory statements and will then take part in a lively panel discussion on the application of the EU Succession Regulation in their respective jurisdictions. The results of these webinars will be presented as comparative reports at an online conference in September 2022.

 

Attendance is free of charge. A ZOOM link will be sent to those who register by sending an e-mail to  zivilrecht@uni-graz.at

 

For more information see the program (provided below)!

 

Gregor Christandl        Jens Kleinschmidt       Jan Peter Schmidt

Univeristät Graz                   Universität Trier          Max Planck Institute

 

 

 

PANEL 1 TUESDAY, 15 MARCH, 4-6 pm CET Belgium Patrick Wautelet, Université de Liège Estonia Karin Sein, University of Tartu France Stefan Stade, ArteJURIS Cabinet d’Avocats, Strasbourg Portugal Afonso Patrão, University of Coimbra PANEL 2 TUESDAY, 5 APRIL, 4-6 pm CET Bulgaria Boriana Musseva, University of Sofia Latvia Janis Grasis, Riga Stradins University Malta Paul George Pisani, Notary Public, Victoria The Netherlands Katja Zimmermann, University of Groningen Spain Guillermo Palao Moreno, University of Valencia PANEL 3 TUESDAY, 26 APRIL, 4-6 pm CET Czech Republic Magdalena Pfeiffer, Charles University, Prague Germany Lena Kunz, University of Heidelberg Lithuania Katažyna Bogdzevic, Mykolas Romeris University Poland Anna Wysocka-Bar, Jagiellonian University Romania Daniel Berlingher, Vasile Goldis Western University of Arad PANEL 4 TUESDAY, 31 MAY, 4-6 pm CET Austria Brigitta Lurger, University of Graz Croatia Mirela Župan, University of Osijek Hungary Csongor István Nagy, University of Szeged Slovakia Elena Judova, Matej Bel University Slovenia Jerca Kramberger Škerl, University of Ljubljana PANEL 5 TUESDAY, 21 JUNE, 4-6 pm CET Cyprus Achilles Emilianides, University of Nicosia Finland Tuulikki Mikkola, University of Turku Greece Haris P. Pamboukis, Giorgos Nikolaidis, University of Athens Italy Domenico Damascelli, University of Salento Sweden Michael Bogdan, University of Lund ”

Additional information may be obtained from the accompanying PDF Document.

 

 

 

 

EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The seventh EFFORTS Newsletter has just been released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.

In this framework, the EFFORTS International Exchange Seminar was organised and hosted online by the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg on February 25th, 2022: an account of the resulting engaged discussions between academics and practitioners in the field of cross-border enforcement of claims will be given in the Report on practices in a comparative and cross-border perspective, to be published soon on the Project website.

Regular updates are also available via the Project’s LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

The Special Interest Group on Family and Succession Law of the European Law Institute will host a series of webinars on the Application of the EU Succession Regulation in the Member States, organised by a sub-group on Succession Law chaired by Gregor Christandl of the University of Graz.

The five webinars in the series will take place between March and June 2022 and will shed light on the actual practice regarding cross border succession cases in the Member States.

The reporters will open the webinars with short introductory statements and will then take part in a lively panel discussion on the application of the EU Succession Regulation in their respective jurisdictions. The results of these webinars will be presented as comparative reports at an online conference in September 2022. 

A message from Organizers and the programmme is available here.

Attendance is free of charge. A ZOOM link will be sent to those who register at zivilrecht@uni-graz.at.

The Conference represents the final event of the JUDGTRUST Project, funded by the Justice Programme of the European Union. The objective of the Project is to identify best practices and to provide guidelines in the interpretation and application of Regulation 1215/2012 (BI-bis). The JUDGTRUST Project is coordinated by the T.M.C. Asser Instituut and carried out in partnership with the University of Hamburg, the University of Antwerp and the Internationaal Juridisch Instituut.

The Conference will host panels on, inter alia, the scope of application, relationship with other instruments, rules on jurisdiction, provisional measures, as well as enforcement and recognition of foreign judgments. Additionally, the key findings from the National Reports of the EU Member States will be presented. It aims to bring together academics, policy makers and legal practitioners. It will take place on 21 – 22 April 2022 at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague.

Further information and a link for registration can be found @ T.M.C. Asser Instituut – Events.

Speakers:
Prof. Dr. Markus Tobias Kotzur, University of Hamburg
Dr. Vesna Lazic, Asser Institute, The Hague; Utrecht University
Prof. Dr. Burkhard Hess, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law
Mr. David Althoff, International Legal Institute, The Hague
Prof. Dr. Louise Ellen Teitz, Roger Williams University School of Law, Bristol, Rhode Island
Prof. Dr. Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians University of Munich
Prof. Dr. Antonio Leandro, University of Bari
Mr. Michiel de Rooij, Asser Institute, The Hague
Prof. Dr. Javier Carrascosa González, University of Murcia
Prof. Dr. Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan
Prof. Dr. Gilles Cuniberti, University of Luxembourg
Dr. Fieke van Overbeeke, International Legal Institute, The Hague
Dr. Mukarrum Ahmed, University of Lancaster
Prof. Dr. Jachin Van Doninck, Free University Brussels
Prof. Dr. Luis de Lima Pinheiro, University of Lisbon
Ms. Lisette Frohn, International Legal Institute, The Hague
Prof. Dr. Beatriz Añoveros Terradas, University of Barcelona
Dr. Pontian Okoli, University of Stirling
Prof. Dr. Francesca Clara Villata, University of Milan

Moderators:
Prof. Dr. Johan Meeusen, University of Antwerp
Prof. Dr. Marta Pertegás Sender, University of Antwerp
Dr. Fieke van Overbeeke, International Legal Institute, The Hague
Ms. Lisette Frohn, International Legal Institute, The Hague

Coordinator

JUDGTRUST is coordinated by Vesna Lazic, senior researcher in private international law at the Asser Institute. She is part of the ‘Public interest(s) inside/within international and European institutions and their practices’ research strand. She has published extensively on international trade law, international commercial arbitration, and European private international law.

The EAPIL asked us to share information about their Webinar “What Measures Should the EU Adopt to Enhance the Protection of Adults in Europe?” on 10 March from 17 to 19.00 Central European Time (GMT +1). You can register until 9 March.

This is in response to the European Commission’s public consultation on the need for improved EU cooperation in the field of the protection of adults, in conjunction with the Hague Convention of 2000.

Also of note is that the Hague Conference on Private International Law is in the process of drawing up a practical handbook and has launched its consultation with Member States on the the draft practical handbook.

 

 

The EAPIL Young Research Network is looking forward to welcoming the academic and research community to the beautiful city of Dubrovnik on 14 and 15 May 2022 for a closing conference on the EAPIL Young Research Network’s third research project with the title: Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants – Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended?

The research project aimed at facilitating a critical discussion of the possibility envisaged in Article 79 of the Brussels I bis Regulation of extending the personal scope of the jurisdictional rules contained in the Regulation.

The conference will include a presentation of the research project and its core results as well as discussions with the representatives of the European Commission, the Hague Conference on Private International Law and leading scholars. The Conference will be held at the Inter-University Centre located at the address Don Frana Bulića 4, in close vicinity of the Dubrovnik historical centre.

There is no fee for attending the conference and we are providing limited assistance in booking the most appropriate accommodation (as explained in the application form).

Please direct all inquiries regarding the conference to youngresearch@eapil.org.

The Conference Program is available here; the Application Form here.

Lors de la présentation du rapport d’information sur l’évaluation de la loi française sur le devoir de vigilance des multinationales, le député Dominique Potier, qui porte ce sujet depuis une dizaine d’années, a livré un premier décryptage du projet de directive de la Commission européenne.

en lire plus

Deutsche Umwelthilfe (Réception des véhicules à moteur)
Environnement et consommateurs
Avocat général Rantos : les associations de protection de l’environnement agréées doivent pouvoir contester en justice une réception CE par type de véhicules équipés de « dispositifs d’invalidation » susceptibles d’être interdits

The EAPIL Young Research Network is looking forward to welcoming the academic and research community to the beautiful city of Dubrovnik on 14 and 15 May 2022 for a closing conference on the EAPIL Young Research Network’s third research project with the title: Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants – Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended?

The research project aimed at facilitating a critical discussion of the possibility envisaged in Art. 79 Brussels Ibis Regulation of extending the personal scope of the jurisdictional rules contained in the Regulation.

The conference will include a presentation of the research project and its core results as well as discussions with the representatives of the European Commission, the Hague Conference on Private International Law and leading scholars. The Conference will be held at the Inter-University Centre located at the address Don Frana Buli?a 4, in close vicinity of the Dubrovnik historical centre.

There is no fee for attending the conference and we are providing limited assistance in booking the most appropriate accommodation (as explained in the application form).

Please direct all inquiries regarding the conference to youngresearch@eapil.org.

• Conference Program
• Application Form

On 2 March 2022 the US signed the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. Five more States have already signed the Convention, namely Costa Rica, Israel, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Uruguay.

So far, none of the above States has ratified the Convention. According to Article 28, two ratifications are needed for the Convention to enter into force.

In July 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Council decision on the accession to the Convention by the European Union. In December 2021, the Council forwarded the draft Council decision to the European Parliament, the consent of which is a precondition for the adoption of the decision pursuant to Article 218 of the TFEU.

Quelle place pour l’avocat au cœur du droit européen ? Comment les outils du droit de l’Union européenne protègent-ils les justiciables ?

en lire plus

Today, 2 March 2022, the United States of America (USA) signed the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. This made the world’s largest economy the sixth signatory state to the new legal instrument, following Uruguay, Costa Rica, Israel and, intricately, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. However, read in conjunction with the recent proposal of the European Commission, the U.S. signature demonstrates the (still) strong interest in a global legal framework for judicial cooperation in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Originally posted on the NGPIL website

The NGPIL previously announced a Prize of 300 British Pounds Sterling for the best paper on Nigerian conflict of laws for an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any Nigerian lawyer five years call or below practicing and residing in Nigeria.

A call for paper commenced in September 2021 with submissions received from participants across various States in Nigeria, entries from undergraduates and postgraduates in law, and early years post-call practitioners.

Following the submission deadline on 10 January 2022, the NGPIL made an assessment that Mr Solomon Adegboyo, an LLM student at the University of Ibadan, emerged winner of the competition.  Mr Adegboyo’s winning entry is titled “Tort in the Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Analysis”. Mr Olawale Adeosun, an LLM student at the University of Lagos, emerged the first runner up. Miss Hope Olajumoke a Nigerian law graduate (1 year post call to the Bar, Ekiti State University) emerged the 2nd runner up.

The response to the call was very encouraging and it is hoped this will be the springboard to encouraging, nurturing, and strengthening the foundations of private international law in Nigeria from earlier stages of academia and practice. This initiative will also assist with targeting areas of improvement such as addressing the lack of materials and resources on conflict of laws in Nigeria.

Huge congratulations to the winner and thank you to our runners-up and other participants!

Statistiques judiciaires 2021 : en dépit de la pandémie, l’institution judiciaire de l’Union a pu garantir pleinement la continuité de ses activités

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Skat v Solo Capital Partners here and concluded that it endangered the effet utile of Brussels Ia (and Lugano). Justice Baker had concluded that all SKAT’s claims were inadmissible as a consequence of Dicey Rule 3. The Court of Appeal has now largely reversed, [Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners Llp [2022] EWCA Civ 234] thereby resurrecting a £1,4 billion claim.

SKAT (Danish customs and excise) seeks the return of amounts it says it was wrongly induced to pay out as tax refunds. SKAT is not seeking to recover due and unpaid dividend tax or indeed any tax, because the foundation of its argument is that in the case of the alleged fraud defendants there was no liability to pay tax, no shares, no dividends, no tax and no withholding tax. There was never a taxpayer/tax authority relationship between the Solo etc Applicants or the alleged fraud defendants and SKAT. The mere fact that the alleged fraud is committed in the context of taxation or against a foreign tax authority is insufficient to bring the matter within the rule [SKAT’s counsel arguments, [30]-[31]). To allow the defendants to escape their liability, not in a tax fraud but in a general conspiracy, would also run counter the fraus omnia corrumpit principle [ditto, 62], a point which Flaux C agrees with obiter [146] in a case of a major international fraud..

Flaux C is much less verbose than the submissions before him. Yet again a jurisdictional point was allowed to be litigated to great length – albeit one may appreciate counsel and clients’ energy on those issues given the value of the claim.

[127] the basis of the claim is fraudulent misrepresentation. It is not a claim to unpaid tax or a claim to recover tax at all. It is a claim to recover monies which had been abstracted from SKAT’s general funds by fraud [128]. Even though SKAT may be an emanation of the Danish state, the Dicey revenue rule does not apply [128], neither does the wider sovereign powers rule within Dicey Rule 3:

‘In bringing a claim to recover the monies of which it was defrauded, SKAT is not doing an act of a sovereign character or enforcing a sovereign right, nor is it seeking to vindicate a sovereign power. Rather it is making a claim as the victim of fraud for the restitution of monies of which it has been defrauded, in the same way as if it were a private citizen.’ [129]

This latter reasoning falls short I find of proper criteria to guide its future application, although more is said at [130]: the claim to recover the money is at the core of the Chancellor’s reasoning here and that claim is a straightforward money claim, and [133] ‘the claims are ones which could just as well be brought by a private citizen’. That is the kind of argument which echoes CJEU authority on civil and commercial and to my mind the Court of Appeal could have helped us all by pointing out more specifically to what degree Dicey Rule 3 be informed by CJEU authority on ‘civil and commercial’, regardless of Brexit.

That there would be a detailed examination of the Danish tax regime and possible criticism of it and of SKAT’s systems and control, does not somehow convert the claim into one to enforce that tax regime. Recognition of foreign revenue laws is permissible under Dicey Rule 3 [138].

The position of one of the defendants, ED&F Man, is different in the sense that there is no allegation that they were implicated in a fraud. Although it is alleged that misrepresentations were made by them, the misrepresentations are said to have been negligent.

SKAT has to accept that as against those defendants the claim is inadmissible by virtue of Dicey Rule 3 unless it can satisfy the Court: (i) that the claim is a “civil and commercial matter” not a “revenue matter” for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation; and (ii) that the operation of Dicey Rule 3 is precluded because, contrary to the judge’s analysis, it would impair the effectiveness of the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Contrary to the conclusion the judge reached the Court of Appeal finds that the claim against ED&F Man is a “revenue matter” falling outside the Brussels Recast Regulation. Here the Court of Appeals applies parity of reasoning with its assessment of the other claims: [150]:

Whilst the test for the application of Dicey Rule 3 may not be identical to that for determining what is a “revenue etc matter” for Article 1(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, it can be seen that its application leads to the same answer. If Dicey Rule 3 applies (as SKAT has to accept it does in relation to the claim against ED&F Man) then by the same reasoning, the basis for the claim by SKAT against those defendants is either a right which arises from an exercise of public powers or a legal relationship characterised by an exercise of public powers, from which it necessarily follows that the claim is a revenue matter outside the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Unfortunately therefore the effet utile argument (that application of Dicey rule 3 impairs the effectiveness of BIa /Lugano, as I had argued in my earlier post) is not discussed [153].

The title of this piece of course hints at the relevance of claim formulation. It is also exaggerated: SKAT cannot conjure up fraud elements out of nowhere to reinvent a tax claim as one in mere tortious and fraudulent misrepresentation. However it is clear that in cases that are somewhat murky, claim formulation will be crucial to navigate Dicey Rule 3.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.28 ff.

Thank you Ali Malek QC (successful for defendants) for bringing this AM's CA's judgment in SKAT to my attention.
Dicey rule 3, foreign public law, revenue matters
Appeal only partially succeedshttps://t.co/UQwg8caiGf
Review of the first instance judgmenthttps://t.co/r7WXwAoaXl

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 25, 2022

Yesterday (1 March 2022) the Institute of International Law approved a declaration on the aggression in Ukraine. The declaration is available by clicking the following links:

Declaration of the Institute of International Law on Aggression in Ukraine – 1 March 2022 (EN)-1

Déclaration de l’Institut de Droit international sur l’agression en Ukraine – 1 mars 2022 (FR)

The current developments in Ukraine and the measures and sanctions currently in place have undoubtedly an impact across all areas, including private international law. See for example the measures adopted by the European Union here.

I include an excerpt of the declaration below:

The Institute recalls that the ongoing military operations call ipso facto for the application of international humanitarian law, including the rules relating to occupation, as well as all the other rules applicable in times of armed conflict. It recalls also that persons responsible for international crimes as defined by international law may be prosecuted and sentenced in accordance with the law in force.

Faithful to its mission, the Institute remains convinced that, while international law alone cannot prevent the outbreak of violence, it must remain the compass by which States are guided, and it is more than ever determined to strengthen its work to promote “the progress of international law”. The Institute adds its voice to that of other actors in the international community, including the learned societies acting in defense of the rule of law, who call for an end to the war in Ukraine and the settlement in good faith of disputes between the States concerned through all appropriate means of peaceful settlement.