Agrégateur de flux

Council Decision (EU) 2022/1206 of 12 July 2022 concerning the accession of the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters was published at the OJEU today (JOEU, L 187, 14.7.2022, p. 1).

Its Article 1 states: “The accession of the European Union to the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters is hereby approved on behalf of the Union”.

Source: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv%3AOJ.L_.2022.187.01.0001.01.ENG&toc=OJ%3AL%3A2022%3A187%3ATOC

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑572/21 (CC v VO), which is about Brussels II bis and the transfer, during court proceedings, of the habitual residence of a child from a Member State to a third State party to the 1996 Hague Convention. 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 8, paragraphe 1, du règlement (CE) no 2201/2003 du Conseil, du 27 novembre 2003 […] lu en combinaison avec l’article 61, sous a), de ce règlement, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une juridiction d’un État membre, saisie d’un litige en matière de responsabilité parentale, ne conserve pas la compétence pour statuer sur ce litige au titre de cet article 8, paragraphe 1, lorsque la résidence habituelle de l’enfant en cause a été transférée légalement, en cours d’instance, sur le territoire d’un État tiers qui est partie à la convention concernant la compétence, la loi applicable, la reconnaissance, l’exécution et la coopération en matière de responsabilité parentale et de mesures de protection des enfants, conclue à La Haye le 19 octobre 1996 ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=262946&mode=req&pageIndex=1&dir=&occ=first&part=1&text=&doclang=FR&cid=148720

AG Szpunar delivered today his opinion in case C‑354/21 (R.J.R., Registrų centras), which is about the delimitation of the lex successionis and the lex registrii, with suggested decision in favour of the first one. The opinion is currently available in the vast majority of EU official languages, 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):

Context : « Une femme vit en Allemagne, de même que son fils. Elle décède, laissant celui-ci pour seul héritier. Elle possédait des biens immobiliers en Allemagne et en Lituanie. Son fils obtient un certificat successoral européen des autorités allemandes, spécifiant qu’il est l’unique héritier de l’intégralité du patrimoine de la défunte. Il présente ce certificat aux autorités lituaniennes en demandant l’inscription au registre foncier d’un bien immobilier. Celles-ci refusent d’accéder à cette demande au motif que ledit certificat est incomplet.

2. La présente demande de décision préjudicielle soulève donc la question délicate de la délimitation des domaines d’application respectifs de la lex successionis  et de la lex registrii et, plus concrètement, de la répartition des compétences entre l’autorité émettrice d’un certificat successoral européen et l’autorité en charge du registre foncier, située dans un autre État membre ».

Suggested decision : « L’article 1er, paragraphe 2, sous l), l’article 68, sous l), et l’article 69, paragraphe 5, du règlement (UE) no 650/2012 […] s’opposent à l’application de dispositions de droit national en vertu desquelles un bien immobilier acquis par un héritier unique en vertu d’un droit successoral régi par le principe de la succession universelle, ne peut être inscrit au registre foncier de l’État membre sur le territoire duquel ce bien est situé sur le fondement d’un certificat successoral européen qu’à la condition que toutes les données d’identification du bien immeuble requises par le droit national de cet État membre soient indiquées dans ce certificat ».

Source: https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=262971&pageIndex=0&doclang=fr&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=1845309

“From 4 to 8 July 2022, the Fifth Meeting of the Special Commission on the Practical Operation of the 1993 Adoption Convention was held […] The Special Commission reviewed the draft Toolkit on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices in Intercountry Adoption, developed by the Working Group on Preventing and Addressing Illicit Practices in Intercountry Adoption, as well as the draft Recommended Model Forms for use under the 1993 Adoption Convention, and approved them, in principle, subject to certain amendments. Both will be submitted to the Council on General Affairs and Policy in 2023 for final approval and publication. Post-adoption matters featured prominently in the discussions, resulting in several recommendations to Contracting Parties aimed at developing specialised and quality post-adoption services, including in the search for origins. Intrafamily adoptions and alternatives to full adoption, such as simple and open adoptions, were also discussed.

[…] The Special Commission adopted over 50 Conclusions & Recommendations, available” at https://assets.hcch.net/docs/d56b7ba3-6695-4862-b49c-75c730e9d599.pdf

Source: https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=866

First Advocate-General Szpunar opined in C-265/21 AB, AB-CD v Z EF a few weeks back. The case-name is a victim of the anonymisation rules and I propose we name it ‘the São Paulo Panels’, this being its ultimate subject: 20 panels exhibited at the 1977 São Paulo Art Biennial (this much information one can read in the publicly available referral decision and the AG Opinion). Tobias Lutzi has summary of the most relevant sections in the Opinion here and in the interest of disclosure I should add I am instructed for Belgium in the case.

Early in the 1980s the original German artists handed over the panels to an art gallery in Belgium. The nature of the deposit (sale or deposit) is contested. The owner of the art gallery later sold the panels to her daughter and son-in-law, who requested Christie’s of London to sell the panels. That sale has been suspended since 2013 (hence the case is subject to Brussels I, not Brussels Ia however there is no material difference) in light of one of the original artists, the wife (her husband had passed away) claiming ownership; the wife in the meantime has passed away, too, and the proceedings are continued by their son. (The CJEU may find this of note, seeing as the original proceedings at the outset involved at least one of the original contracting parties).

Current proceedings result from the Belgian-domiciled claimants having requested the Belgian courts to confirm their ownership of the objects. The Belgian courts are asking the CJEU whether the case involves A7(1) special jurisdiction for contract and if so, where the forum contractus lies. Claimants argue the claim engages A7(1) on the basis of the original contract which they argue is one in sale, with performance in Belgium. The defendant argues the original contract was one of deposit, and that a declaratory claim such as the one at issue, with the parties to the proceedings not being parties to the original contract, does not engage A7(1) at all, instead only being subject to Article 4, domicile of the defendant.

Clearly the questions will enable the Court to clarify whether its Feniks, Flight Right etc case-law, with their extended notion of ‘contract’, applies across the board, without much need to take the specific context of those cases into account; or whether there ought to be some restraint on the reach of the forum contractus. One assumes it may seek some inspiration in its approach to distinguishing contracts and torts, eg in Wikingerhof (or Sharpston AG’s earlier ‘ancestry’ test for the Rome I and II distinction in Ergo). Without restraint, CJEU De Bloos’ great window of opportunity for claim formulation hence forum shopping is likely to be reinvigorated.

The AG (44) ff explains the initial restrictive approach to forum contractus per CJEU Handte, and (53) confesses not to be a fan of a restrictive interpretation of A7, arguing such interpretation would undermine the Regulation’s intention, in formulating the special jurisdictional rules, of ensuring that courts with a particular suitability to hear the case will have jurisdiction to do so. The alternative view is that too wide an interpretation undermines the Regulation’s DNA of predictability and the statutorily expressed view that A4 forum rei is the core principle of the Regulation, and the established case-law in support of this principle that exceptions to it need to be restrictively interpreted. The AG refers more than once in his Opinion to scholarship of one of my Doktorkinder, Dr Michiel Poesen, to substantiate the scholarly debate.

He subsequently discusses the later wider CJEU wider approach, starting with Engler and culminating in flight right, concludes that the current claim falls within that wider framework but does emphasise that the contract must lie at the foundation of the claim: ‘et sur laquelle se fonde l’action du demandeur’ (75).

(76) ff discusses the important question how far the judge, faced with opposition to her /his jurisdiction, must go in the consultation or interpretation of the contract, to establish whether or not the claim finds its foundation in contract. Per Kolassa and Universal Music, both the claimant’s and the defendant’s arguments to that effect are said by the AG to be of relevance. (83) Seeing as both parties argue their position with reference to a contract, the AG advises that on the facts of the case, the contractual foundation is clear; (84) that the contract which is the initial source of the rights and obligations (“la source originale des droits et obligations litigieux”) is the anchor point for the forum contractus, i.e. the disputed 1980s contract and not the later contract of sale; and (86) ff, that the judge will have to apply the classic A7(1) cascade: if the initial contract cannot be qualified as one for the sale of movable goods or a service, the CJEU Tessili Dunlop method of looking over the fence will have to be applied. (The referral decision is short on factual elements to help the AG opine on this point).

Fun with contracts…..

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, 2.419 ff.

Opinion @maciejszpunar AG last week in C-265/21: yet more on 'contract' for jurisdictional purposes, A7(1) Brussels Ia. More later this week – I am a bit swamped.https://t.co/CPoq3x1PLS

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 20, 2022

In Case C-652/20 HW, ZF, MZ v Allianz Elementar Versicherungs AG, the CJEU held (no English version of the judgment is as yet available) end of June that A11(1)(b) Brussels Ia, determines jurisdiction not just of ‘the’ courts in a Member State (leaving territorial jurisdiction to be determined by national civil procedure rules) but rather of a specific court within that Member State. The judgment is a bit longer than might have been expected: that is because the referring judge did not qualify one or two elements which, particularly in an insurance context, can be quite convoluted. (Such as the nature and deliniation of ‘beneficiaries’, ‘insureds’, ‘victims’).

In accordance with the Article, ‘An insurer domiciled in a Member State may be sued: …(b) in another Member State, in the case of actions brought by the policyholder, the insured or a beneficiary, in the courts for the place where the claimant is domiciled’.

[35] The Court observes that in the Romanian (the language of the case) as well as the English and Finnish version of Brussels Ia use the plural ‘courts’ while in the other language versions, the singular is used. (Regular readers of the blog may be familiar with my earlier work on languages and interpretation). Coupled with the indications of territorial jurisdiction in the relevant section of the Report Jenard, and with the similar language in A7(1) and (2) and relevant case-law there (ex multi: Kareda, Volvo), the CJEU concludes that where A11(1)(b) and all its conditions apply, the Article identifies both national and territorial jurisdiction indeed.

Geert.

 

CJEU today in Allianz today. Brussels Ia insurance title determines national as well as territorial jurisdiction https://t.co/tnv51a8qWx

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 30, 2022

C-176/19 P & Commission/Servier e.a. et C 201/19 P & Servier e.a./Commission
Concurrence
Commercialisation du périndopril : l’avocate générale Kokott propose à la Cour de juger que tous les accords conclus par le groupe Servier avec des sociétés de médicaments génériques constituaient des restrictions de la concurrence par objet et d’annuler les constatations du Tribunal concernant les accords entre Servier et Krka, d’une part, et la définition du marché pertinent aux fins de l’application de l’article 102 TFUE, d’autre part

Puig Gordi e.a.
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Richard de la Tour, une autorité judiciaire ne peut pas refuser d’exécuter un mandat d’arrêt européen en se fondant sur le risque de violation du droit à un procès équitable de la personne réclamée si l’existence de défaillances systémiques ou généralisées touchant le système judiciaire de l’État membre d’émission n’est pas démontrée

C 128/20 GSMB Invest, C-134/20 Volkswagen et C 145/20 Porsche Inter Auto et Volkswagen
Rapprochement des législations
Un logiciel, équipant des véhicules Diesel, qui réduit l’efficacité du système de contrôle des émissions lors de températures habituelles et durant la majeure partie de l’année, constitue un dispositif d’invalidation interdit

C-59/18 & Italie/Conseil et C-182/18 & Comune di Milano/Conseil, dans les affaires jointes C-106/19 & Italie/Conseil et Parlement et C-232/19 & Comune di Milano/Parlement et Conseil, et dans l’affaire C-743/19 & Parlement/Conseil
Droit institutionnel
Fixation du siège de l’EMA et de l’ELA : la compétence pour en décider appartient au législateur de l’Union et non aux États membres

CC (Transfert de la résidence habituelle de l’enfant vers un État tiers)
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Une juridiction d’un État membre ne demeure pas compétente pour statuer en matière de garde d’enfant sur la base du règlement Bruxelles II bis  lorsque la résidence habituelle de l’enfant a légalement fait l’objet d’un transfert, en cours de procédure, sur le territoire d’un État tiers qui est partie à la convention de La Haye de 1996

Commission / Danemark (AOP Feta)
Agriculture
Le Danemark a manqué à ses obligations en ne cessant pas d’utiliser l’appellation « Feta » pour des fromages destinés à l’exportation vers des pays tiers

Procureur général près la cour d'appel d'Angers
DFON
Mandat d’arrêt européen et condition de la double incrimination du fait : une correspondance parfaite n’est pas requise entre les éléments constitutifs de l’infraction concernée dans l’État membre d’émission et dans l’État membre d’exécution

Universität Bremen / REA
Principes du droit communautaire
Un professeur de droit peut représenter sa propre université devant le Tribunal et la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

The latest issue of the IPRax (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts) will be published on 1 July 2022. It contains a number of interesting articles and case comments regarding issues of jurisdiction and applicable law. The table of contents is available here. The following abstracts have been kindly provided to us.

R. Wolfram, Achmea – Neglecting of International Public Law – Some Afterthoughts

This contribution is not meant to assess the Achmea judgment of the European Court of Justice. It intends instead to throw some light on the rules of public international law on the termination of international treaties, which have not fully been taken into account by those who attempted to implement the Achmea judgment. At the core of is the question whether the incompatibility of a treaty under international law with another international law treaty leads to the automatic non-applicability of the former. The contribution concludes this is not generally the case under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P. Schlosser, Jurisdiction Agreements and other Agreements integrally Covered by European Law

Certain contracts are particularly close to the law of the European Union. They include international jurisdiction agreements, contracts creating an exception in European law, to generally prohibited contracts, and contracts providing the use of European Trademarks and other European rights valid even against third persons. The fundamental proposal of the author is, that the legal effects of the violation of rights, provided by such contracts, must be found in European, rather than in national law. That law is particularly concerned about its effectiveness, if needed by a creative approach. In German law the legal consequences of such a violation must include, inspired by French law, an indemnification of a lost chance and a more liberal approach to moral (immaterial) damage.

S. Schwemmer, A Conflict of Laws Doctrine for the Transfer of Bitcoin, Crypto Securities and Other Crypto Assets

Cryptoassets like Bitcoin are entries in a distributed ledger. As such, they do not fall within any of the traditional categories of property. However, most jurisdictions are slowly working their way to recognize them as property. Even German law now allows for tokenized bearer bonds and defines special transfer requirements. On the level of conflict of laws, this results in a growing need to define the applicable law relating to the assignment of cryptoassets. These questions are not regulated by the written general conflict of laws rules under German law. While § 32 eWpG now provides a special conflict of laws rule for electronic securities, there is still a regulatory gap for other types of tokens. The article discusses possible solutions for the different types of cryptoassets.

B. Heiderhoff and E. Yalcin, International Jurisdiction in Cases Where Services are Provided in Several Member States

The determination of international jurisdiction under Article 7(1)(b), second indent, of the Brussels Ia Regulation is highly difficult in cases where services are provided in different Member States. The decision of the OLG München (Higher Regional Court of Munich) regarding a brokerage contract shows that it is not always possible to determine the place of main performance. This article discusses if, in such cases, the place where the service provider is domiciled should be considered as the place of performance. The authors conclude that this approach only fits if at least a part of the service was provided at the service provider’s domicile.

W. Hau, International Jurisdiction Based on Nationality in European Family Law

For almost a quarter of a century, there has been an intensive debate on whether the European legislator is allowed to open international jurisdiction in matrimonial matters for nationals of the forum state earlier than for nationals of other Member States. Now the CJEU has taken the view that such a rule is in line with the prohibition of discrimination provided for in Article 18 TFEU. The reasoning given for this is not particularly profound and leaves some questions unanswered, but it may at least contribute to a welcome reassurance in the area of European family law, in which very deep differences between the legal policy positions of the Member States have become apparent in recent years.

C. González Beilfuss, Forum Non Conveniens in a European Way: A Failed Dialogue

In the decision commented on here, the CJEU decided for the first time on the interaction of Article 6(a) and Article 7(a) of the Succession Regulation and emphasized the binding effect of the decision to decline jurisdiction for the court later seized. The second court is not permitted to review the decision to decline jurisdiction by the first court. This article analyzes the decision in particular with regard to the lack of communication between the courts, which would have facilitated the smooth interplay between both jurisdiction rules.

B. Hess, Exequatur sur exequatur vaut? The CJEU Enlarges the Free Movement of Decisions Coming from Third States under the Brussels I bis Regulation

In the judgment C-568/20, the CJEU held that a decision of a court of an EU Member State which merges a judgment of a third state is enforceable under Articles 39 ss of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The Third Chamber argued that the concept of “judgment” in Articles 2(a) and 39 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation refers to the different procedural laws of EU Member States. Burkhard Hess criticizes this deviation from the uniform and autonomous interpretation of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The solution of the Third Chamber is not compatible with the principle “exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut”.

C. Thole, The Law Applicable to Voidable Payments by Third Parties Under Article 16 EIR

In its judgment of 22 April 2021 the ECJ decided that Article 16 EIR must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the contract also governs the payment made by a third party in performance of a contracting party’s contractual payment obligation, where, in insolvency proceedings, that payment is challenged as an act detrimental to all the creditors. The following article explains the decision and its consequences for cross-border avoidance claims.

D. Wiedemann, Lex successionis or Lex fori: On the Classification of Judicial Measures in the Event of Uncertain Inheritance Relationships

The decision concerns a classical question of classification: the delimitation of succession law from procedural law. The classification of judicial measures in the event of uncertain inheritance relationships, e.g. the appointment of a curator, decides whether such measures are to be assessed according to the procedural law of the lex fori or according to the lex successionis. That a classification is not predetermined can be inferred from different locations: While Germany regulates judicial measures regarding uncertain inheritance relationships in its substantive law (Sections 1960–1962 German Civil Code), other EU Member States and Brazil mainly address this problem in their procedural laws. In the EU, the Succession Regulation No. 650/2012 defines the boundary between succession law and procedure. It will be argued that measures only securing the estate are to be classified as procedural aspects. Measures that also involve the administration of the estate are governed by the Regulation’s choice of law rules.

R. de Barros Fritz, The Characterization of Gifts Causa Mortis under the European Succession Regulation

One of the most debated questions since the enactment of the European Succession Regulation has been the question of the proper characterization of gifts causa mortis. The UM case presented the first opportunity for the CJEU to address this issue. The following case note will discuss the court’s decision and show that, even after the court’s ruling, many open questions remain as to the characterization of gifts causa mortis.

C. Thomale, Circumventing Member State Co-determination Rules with the Societas Europaea

Since its introduction, the supranational legal form of the SE, provided by EU law, has been widely used to circumvent national co-determination law. The case note dicusses two German decisions, which highlight the specific arbitrage potential lying in the national component of the company law and co-determination law of the SE as well as in its autonomous co-determination rules.

D. Looschelders, Characterization of German Joint Wills under the EU Succession Regulation – The Austrian Perspective

Whether the binding effects of a joint will underlie German or Austrian law is of great practical importance when successions are connected to both jurisdictions. While under German law the revocation right of an interrelated disposition lapses upon death of the other spouse, Austrian law enables the surviving spouse to revoke his interrelated disposition even after death of the other spouse. Against this background, the subsequently discussed ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) deals with the crucial question regarding the connecting factor for binding effects, namely whether joint wills under German law have to be characterized as “dispositions of property upon death other than agreements as to succession” (Article 24 EU Succession Regulation) or as “agreements as to succession” (Article 25 EU Succession Regulation). The OGH declared itself in favour of applying Article 25 EU Succession Regulation.

F. Eichel, International Enforcement of Judgments Subject to a Condition – Exequatur Proceedings and International Jurisdiction

The article deals with the international enforcement of judgments which are subject to a condition. Against the background of the exequatur proceedings, it sheds light on the question in which proceedings and in which state it is examined whether the condition has occurred. German, Austrian and Swiss procedural law is taken into account. Furthermore, the article examines the scope of the enforcement jurisdiction (Article 24(5) Brussels Ibis Regulation/Article 22(5) Lugano Convention) for these kinds of proceedings and agrees with the decision of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH, 7.6.2017 – 3 Ob 89/17k). The OGH held that the Austrian claim to examine the occurence of the condition falls within the scope of the enforcement jurisdiction. However, the article criticises that the OGH did not take into account the limited res iudicata-effect of the Austrian claim which should be decisive in determining whether the enforcement jurisdiction is applicable or not.

A. Kirchhefer-Lauber, Private Law Systems with an Interpersonal Division of Law Always Pose Special Challenges for Conflict of Laws

The article deals with the interplay between autonomous German PIL and the internal conflict of laws of a multi-jurisdictional state using the example of Lebanon, which is home to a total of 18 partial religious legal systems in addition to a “civil legal system”. The author analyses, among other things, court decisions in which the distinction between constitutive religious marriage and civil documentation of marriage in Lebanon plays a central role. She also addresses the fact that the possibility of an ordre public violation in legal systems with a division of laws exists on two levels. Firstly, regarding the internal conflict of laws of the multi-jurisdictional state itself and secondly, with regard to the results through the application of a partial legal system. Finally, she highlights that the interpretative method of comparative law between civil and religious partial legal orders requires a special awareness of the importance of the culture-bound nature of law.

Earlier this week, the Council of the European Union has adopted the decision for the EU to accede to the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (which, in accordance with Art. 27(1) of the Convention, binds all Member States except Denmark). Once a second party either ratifies, accepts, or approves, or accedes to the Convention, it will enter into force one year after the deposit of the instrument of ratification, acceptance, approval or accession by that second State (Art. 28(1)). More information is available here.

Illumina / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal confirme les décisions de la Commission acceptant une requête de renvoi de la France, à laquelle se sont joints d’autres États membres, lui demandant d'évaluer le projet d'acquisition de Grail par Illumina

After more than 3 years of active involvement in the EAPIL Young Research Network, which she had co-founded together with Susanne Gössl in 2019, Martina Melcher has handed over the responsibility as one of the Network’s three chairpersons to Dora Zgrabljić Rotar.

The Association is grateful to Martina for her work for, and continued commitment to, the success of the Young Research Network.

The Network is rapidly growing (membership currently stands at 75). This led the members of the Network itself to elect a Secretary. The position will inaugurally be assumed by Marco Pasqua. In case your personal details (including, most importantly, your e-mail address) change or if you want to reach out to one or several members of the Network, please feel free to contact Marco Pasqua at youngresearch@eapil.org.

The activities that the Network is conducting are being worked on. In relation to the current third research project the Network has been dealing with, which focuses on the domestic rules on international jurisdiction in light of Article 79 of the Brussels I bis and the possible extension of the Regulation to defendants without a domicile in an EU Member State, results will be published in a dedicated volume of the Hart Studies in Private International Law series.

In addition, opportunities to discuss the findings directly with the EU Commission and the Working Group on Jurisdiction of the Hague Conference are currently being scheduled. The future fourth research project is being defined after the summer break. The focus could shift to the recognition and enforcement issue, quite similar to the jurisdiction one in the sense that it is partly governed by the Brussels I bis Regulation and partly governed by national law.

The independent think tank Conference on European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL) has published its latest Statement and Report 2022-2 on Cross-Border Effects in European Preventive Restructuring. As EU Member States implement the EU Preventive Restructuring Directive (2019/1023), CERIL has identified and assessed the benefits and shortcomings of applying the EU Insolvency Regulation 2015 (EIR 2015) to govern the cross-border effects of proceedings in national preventive restructuring frameworks. In the absence of an adequate framework for these new preventive restructuring proceedings, the CERIL Report and Statement formulate recommendations to the EU and national legislators.

Three Ways Forward

To date, no tailor-made framework exists which could adequately and effectively facilitate the cross-border effects of these preventive restructuring proceedings. To resolve the legal uncertainty resulting from the lack of a clear regulatory framework, CERIL suggests the following three lines of action. Firstly, as the European Commission will review the application of the EIR 2015 by 27 June 2027, it is recommended that this review critically assesses the adequacy of the EU legislator’s approach laid down in the EIR 2015 and tailor it to also cover in detail these restructuring proceedings.  Secondly, CERIL welcomes any early, if not immediate, action of the European Commission towards the adoption of a special cross-border framework to include restructuring proceedings in the EIR 2015, either as a separate chapter or take the form of a separate regulation. Thirdly, CERIL invites all Member States to timely review their cross-border frameworks to enable and/or facilitate the recognition of foreign preventive restructurings. A European rescue culture, endorsed by Directive (2019/1023), should be complemented by an instrument to adequately provide legal effects of any restructuring for creditors and shareholders, wherever they are located.

About CERIL and its project on Cross-Border Dimensions of Preventive Restructuring Proceedings

The Conference on European Restructuring and Insolvency Law (CERIL) is an independent and voluntary non-profit organisation of presently 85 members (conferees), consisting of insolvency practitioners, judges, and academics representing 30 European countries and reflecting a diverse array of national insolvency systems and legal traditions.

In January 2022, CERIL commenced a new project led by Prof. Stephan Madaus (Member of the CERIL Executive, University of Halle-Wittenberg, Germany) and Prof. em. Bob Wessels (CERIL Chair, University of Leiden, the Netherlands). This project addresses the policy issues of identifying (and possibly selecting) the regulatory cross-border framework for the new procedural options introduced in most EU Member States when implementing preventive restructuring frameworks flowing from Directive (2019/1023). CERIL studied the role of the EIR 2015, the Brussels Ibis Regulation, and the current national cross-border laws of Member States. The reporters worked with contributions of a large group of scholars and insolvency practitioners (Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Poland, Portugal, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Spain, The Netherlands).

With his thesis, which has just been published by LGDJ as part of the prestigious Bibliothèque de droit privé, Yves El Hage makes another, yet formidable addition to the ever-growing body of scholarship on the difficult relationship between private international law and the internet. In the inimitable style of French scholarship, the book consists of two main parts addressing, in turn, “the confrontation” and “the reconciliation” between private international law and the internet (with each part of course being further divided into two sections, and so on).

In the first part, the author convincingly identifies the two core challenges of the internet, i.e. its immateriality (or virtuality) and its universality (or ubiquity). For each of these, he shows how courts and legislators have struggled to find appropriate responses on the basis of traditional PIL rules and methods, with the “territorialist” response to the inherently international nature of online communication a particularly pertinent point of criticism.

In the second part, El Hage discusses two possible ways in which PIL might accommodate these challenges (both of which aim to identify a single competent jurisdiction and a single applicable law). First, he rejects proposals (including my own) that rely mainly, if not solely, on the places in which the individual parties to a litigation have initiated and/or received acts of online communication (so-called “personal” connecting factors). According to him, such criteria do not resolve the existing problems of localisation and fail to accommodate the relevant regulatory interests beyond a purely economic and/or protective logic. Instead, the author proposes, second, to maintain the existing “extrapersonal” connecting factors but to reinterpret them in a way that puts the place of the most significant impact (“l’impact le plus significatif de l’activité en ligne”) into the centre of the analysis.

The extent to which this proposition would differ in practice from proposals relying on “personal” connecting factors, especially from those that try to combine actor- and victim-centred criteria, can certainly be debated. Regardless, the book by Yves El Hage offers both an unusually rich account of the existing (general and specialised) scholarship and a well-argued proposition that flows seamlessly from his thorough analysis of the status quo.