Agrégateur de flux

This post was written by Johan Meeusen, who is a professor at the University of Antwerp and a Member of the Scientific Council of EAPIL. The post was posted first on the site of GEDIP.

Introduction

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in the Pancharevo case (CJEU 14 December 2021, V.M.A./Stolichna obshtina, rayon ‘Pancharevo’, C-490/20) was eagerly awaited. A few years ago, in Coman (judgment of 5 June 2018, C-673/16), the Court had obliged Romania on the basis of Article 21(1) TFEU to recognise, solely for residence purposes, the same-sex marriage that its national Coman and his American partner Hamilton had contracted in Belgium. In Pancharevo, the Court was confronted with the – perhaps even more sensitive – issue of same-sex parenthood, again in the context of the mobility rights that Union citizens derive from Article 21(1) TFEU, interpreted in the light of fundamental rights on the one hand, and considerations of national identity and public policy of the Member State concerned on the other.

Facts

V.M.A. is a Bulgarian national and K.D.K. is a United Kingdom national. Both women have lived in Spain since 2015 and were married in Gibraltar in 2018. In December 2019, V.M.A. and K.D.K. had a daughter, S.D.K.A., who was born and resides with both parents in Spain. Her birth certificate, issued by the Spanish authorities, refers to V.M.A. as ‘Mother A’ and to K.D.K. as ‘Mother’ of the child. V.М.А. applied to the Sofia municipality for a birth certificate for S.D.K.A. to be issued to her, the certificate being necessary, inter alia, for the issue of a Bulgarian identity document. However, the Sofia municipality instructed V.M.A. to provide evidence of the parentage of S.D.K.A., with respect to the identity of her biological mother, as the Bulgarian model birth certificate has only one box for the ‘mother’ and another for the ‘father’, and only one name may appear in each box. After V.М.А. replied that she was not required to provide the information requested, the Sofia municipality refused the application for a birth certificate. The reasons given for that refusal decision were: the lack of information concerning the identity of the child’s biological mother and the fact that a reference to two female parents on a birth certificate was contrary to the public policy of the Republic of Bulgaria, which does not permit marriage between two persons of the same sex.

V.M.A. brought an action against that refusal decision before the Administrativen sad Sofia-grad (the Administrative Court of the City of Sofia, Bulgaria). That court states that, notwithstanding the fact that S.D.K.A. does not have a birth certificate issued by the Bulgarian authorities, she has the Bulgarian nationality under Bulgarian law. The court has doubts, however, as to whether the refusal by the Bulgarian authorities to register the birth of a Bulgarian national, which occurred in another Member State and has been attested by a birth certificate that mentions two mothers and was issued by the competent authorities of the latter Member State, infringes the rights conferred on such a national in the Treaty provisions on Union citizenship and the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (hereinafter: the Charter). The Bulgarian authorities’ refusal to issue a birth certificate is, after all, liable to make it more difficult for a Bulgarian identity document to be issued and, therefore, to hinder that child’s exercise of the right of free movement and thus full enjoyment of her rights as a Union citizen. The Bulgarian court therefore refers four questions to the Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling. These questions seek to ascertain whether EU law obliges a Member State to issue a birth certificate – in order for an identity document to be obtained according to the legislation of that State – for a child, a national of that Member State, whose birth in another Member State is attested by a birth certificate that has been drawn up by the authorities of that other Member State in accordance with the national law of that other State, and which designates, as the mothers of that child, a national of the first of those Member States and her wife, without specifying which of the two women gave birth to that child. If the answer is in the affirmative, the referring court asks whether EU law requires such a certificate to state, in the same way as the certificate drawn up by the authorities of the Member State in which the child was born, the names of those two women in their capacity as mothers.

Judgment

The Court answers the questions referred for a preliminary ruling in a fairly short judgment which, in line with and with frequent reference to its earlier Coman judgment, is characterised by a functional approach designed to ensure that the Union citizens concerned can exercise their rights of free movement without requiring Bulgaria to recognise same-sex parenthood for wider purposes, let alone to incorporate it into its legislation, or to issue a birth certificate to that effect itself.

On basis of the findings of the referring court, which it says alone has jurisdiction in that regard, the Court considers that S.D.K.A. has Bulgarian nationality and hence is a Union citizen. It confirms that a Union citizen who has made use of his or her freedom to move and reside within a Member State other than his or her Member State of origin may rely on the rights pertaining to that status, including against his or her Member State of origin. This also applies to Union citizens who were born in the host Member State of their parents and who have never made use of their right to freedom of movement. Relevant in this regard is the right to move and reside provided for in Article 21(1) TFEU and Article 4(3) of Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38, which requires Member States to issue to their own nationals an identity card or passport stating their nationality in order to enable them to exercise this right. The Bulgarian authorities are therefore required to issue to S.D.K.A. an identity document, regardless of whether a Bulgarian birth certificate has been drawn up for her.

Next, the Court recalls its consideration in Coman that the rights which Union citizens enjoy under Article 21(1) TFEU include the right to lead a normal family life, together with their family members, both in their host Member State and in the Member State of which they are nationals when they return to the territory of that Member State. In more concrete terms, since the Spanish authorities lawfully established that there was a parent-child relationship, biological or legal, between S.D.K.A. and her two parents, V.M.A. and K.D.K., the latter must, therefore, be recognised by all Member States as having  the right to accompany that child when her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States is being exercised. Accordingly, the Bulgarian authorities are required, as are the authorities of any other Member State, to recognise that parent-child relationship for the purposes of permitting S.D.K.A. to exercise without impediment, with each of her two parents, her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States as guaranteed in Article 21(1) TFEU. To that end, V.M.A. and K.D.K. must have a document which mentions them as being persons entitled to travel with that child. In this case, the authorities of the host Member State, Spain, are best placed to draw up such a document, which may consist in a birth certificate. The other Member States are obliged to recognise that document.

According to the Court, that does not detract from the competence of the Member States with regard to a person’s status. After all, it is established case law that each Member State must comply with EU law when exercising its competence. In addition, the obligation to issue an identity card or a passport to S.D.K.A. and to recognise the parent-child relationship between her and her two mothers does not undermine the national identity or pose a threat to the public policy of Bulgaria, since it does not require Bulgaria to provide, in its national law, for the parenthood of persons of the same sex, or to recognise, for purposes other than the exercise of the rights which S.D.K.A. derives from EU law, the parent-child relationship between herself and the persons mentioned on the birth certificate drawn up by the Spanish authorities.

Referring to the interpretation by the European Court of Human Rights of Article 8 of the ECHR and to the relevant provisions of the Convention on the Rights of the Child, the Court considers lastly that it would be contrary to Articles 7 and 24 of the Charter to deprive S.D.K.A. of the relationship with one of her parents when exercising her right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States or for her exercise of that right to be made impossible or excessively difficult in practice on the ground that her parents are of the same sex.

In the final paragraphs of the judgment, the Court examines the hypothesis that S.D.K.A. is not of Bulgarian nationality and sees in this no reason to rule otherwise. K.D.K. and S.D.K.A., irrespective of their nationality, must be regarded by all the Member States as being, respectively, the spouse and the direct descendant within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) and (c) of Directive 2004/38 and, therefore, as being V.M.A.’s family members. They are thus ‘beneficiaries’ within the meaning of the Citizens’ Rights Directive (cf. Art.3(1)) with the derived right of free movement and residence attached to that status.

In the light of the foregoing, the Court rules that the provisions of EU law under examination must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of a child, being a minor, who is a Union citizen and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of the host Member State (in this case, Spain), designates as that child’s parents two persons of the same sex, the Member State of which that child is a national (in this case, Bulgaria) is obliged (i) to issue to that child an identity card or a passport without requiring a birth certificate to be drawn up beforehand by its national authorities, and (ii) to recognise, as is any other Member State, the document from the host Member State that permits that child to exercise, with each of those two persons, the child’s right to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States.

Comments

In Pancharevo, the Court guarantees the freedom of movement and the fundamental rights of Union citizens in a way that, on the one hand, accommodates their personal and family interests and, on the other hand, respects both the competence of the Member States regarding the status of the person and the societal sensitivities – in this case, Bulgarian – involved. The judgment is remarkable for several reasons.

Firstly, this case provides an excellent illustration of the conflict between the claims of mobile Union citizens, who do not want to be restricted in their cross-border activities, and the different values and legislation of the Member States. Pancharevo is the logical next step after Coman and shows once more that the status and family law of the Member States, at least as regards its choice-of-law aspects, can no longer be seen as separate from the impact of EU law.

Secondly, the Court ensures continuity with its ruling in Coman. In the latter ruling, the Court did not oblige Romania in any way to introduce same-sex marriage or to give general recognition to the same-sex marriage contracted by a Romanian or a Union citizen in another Member State. On the contrary, the Court stressed several times that it was only a question of recognition ‘solely for the purpose of granting a derived right of residence to a third-country national’ (in that case, the American spouse of the Romanian Coman). The Court continues this strictly functional approach in Pancharevo. As such, the Court explicitly states that, since EU law does not affect the competence of the Member States regarding the status of persons, ‘the Member States are thus free to decide whether or not to allow marriage and parenthood for persons of the same sex under their national law’ (paragraph 52). Furthermore, the Court’s interpretation of the obligation of Member States to recognise the civil status of persons established in another Member State systematically relates to the right to freedom of movement and, precisely for that reason, does not pose a threat to the public policy or the national identity of Bulgaria: it is merely a question of recognising the filiation of the child ‘in the context of the child’s exercise of her rights under Article 21 TFEU and secondary legislation relating thereto’ (paragraph 56). Hence, as the Court adds, that does not mean that Bulgaria is required ‘to provide, in its national law, for the parenthood of persons of the same sex, or to recognise, for purposes other than the exercise of the rights which that child derives from EU law, the parent-child relationship between that child and the persons mentioned on the birth certificate drawn up by the authorities of the host Member State as being the child’s parents’ (paragraph 57).

Thirdly, it is also noteworthy that, in paragraph 57, the Court does not refer (solely) to the right of the Union citizen to move and reside freely, but more widely to ‘the exercise of the rights which that child derives from EU law’. The Court, which used similar wording in Coman, does not elaborate on this, and the question therefore remains to what extent the aforementioned ‘functional’ approach will remain tenable in the future. Will it really be possible for Romania, in the wake of Coman, to limit the effects of the recognition of the marriage to the residence status of Coman’s American husband Hamilton? Will this couple not want to (and be allowed to?) invoke their marriage status, which is recognised for the purposes of residence, for other legal purposes in Romania as well – tax, filiation, relational aspects of property, inheritance law, etc. – on the grounds that a refusal to do so also infringes the right to freedom of movement and residence and/or the right to private and family life guaranteed by the Charter? And can the same happen in the aftermath of Pancharevo, where, moreover, the rights of the child, protected by Article 24 of the Charter, are at stake? Will the impact of EU law on the recognition of parentage effectively be limited to the provision of an identity document and the recognition of the foreign birth certificate for the purpose of exercising the right to freedom of movement? In fact, even before Pancharevo, the Commission had already planned a legislative initiative in 2022, based on Article 81(3) TFEU, aimed at the mutual recognition of parenthood between Member States in accordance with the motto stated by Commission President von der Leyen in her ‘State of the Union’ of 16 September 2020: ‘If you are parent in one country, you are parent in every country’.

Fourthly, it is noteworthy that the Court briefly discusses the situation where, if checks so should reveal, it would appear that S.D.K.A. does not have Bulgarian nationality. In this case, it relies on V.M.A.’s Bulgarian nationality and categorizes her partner K.D.K. and daughter S.D.K.A. as, respectively, spouse and direct descendant within the meaning of Article 2(2)(a) and (c) of the Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38. The latter are then ‘beneficiaries’ within the meaning of the Directive and enjoy derived rights of movement and residence. The Court adds to this that ‘a child, being a minor, whose status as a Union citizen is not established and whose birth certificate, issued by the competent authorities of a Member State, designates as her parents two persons of the same sex, one of whom is a Union citizen, must be considered, by all Member States, a direct descendant of that Union citizen within the meaning of Directive 2004/38 for the purposes of the exercise of the rights conferred in Article 21(1) TFEU and the secondary legislation relating thereto’ (paragraph 68). In this respect, the Court follows the line taken in Coman, which combined recognition of the competence of the Member States in relation to personal status with a (partially) autonomous interpretation of the concept of ‘spouse’ used in Article 2(2)(a) of Directive 2004/38, in the sense that it refers to a person who is a person joined to another person by the bonds of marriage regardless of their sex. Pancharevo also recognises, on the one hand, the substantive competence of the Member States, but, on the other, gives a specific Union law interpretation to the concept of ‘direct descendant’ used in the same directive: the relationship referred to in Article 2(2)(c) of the directive is not necessarily based on a biological relationship. Thus, if parentage has been validly established in an official birth certificate of a Member State, more traditional conceptions of biological kinship between parent and child in the host Member State cannot preclude the status of the latter as ‘direct descendant’. On this last point, the Court follows the path it had already set in SM (judgment of 26 March 2019, C-129/18).

Last but not least, Pancharevo will undoubtedly stimulate the debate among conflicts scholars on the precise significance of the so-called ‘recognition method’ as an alternative choice-of-law method. As was the case with Coman as well, the Court in Pancharevo interprets EU law but its judgment profoundly impacts the recognition of personal status from the perspective of conflict of laws as well. While the Court’s approach is characterized by a functional, hence cautious approach, an essential question is whether this restraint is really tenable, given the far-reaching impact of both EU free movement and fundamental rights law… The significance of Pancharevo for EU conflict of laws in particular will be further examined by GEDIP. The group currently discusses a European codification of the general part of private international law, working inter alia in that context on the recognition of situations validly established abroad. The sub-group which examines the latter issue obviously will take into account the CJEU’s judgment in Pancharevo when preparing its report for the next GEDIP meeting, scheduled to take place in Oslo in September.

Conclusion

With its purposive interpretation of Union citizenship, invariably described as ‘destined to be the fundamental status of nationals of the Member States’, the Court of Justice ensures the mobility of Union citizens. In a diverse European Union based on the protection of fundamental rights, in which the personal status of the individual still is a competence of the Member States, this implies openness to diversity. With its balanced and well-founded Pancharevo judgment, in which the functional recognition of the parentage relationship and the broad interpretation of the concept of ‘direct descendant’ stand out, the Court ensures both the effectiveness of the rights of Union citizens, including the protection of fundamental rights, and respect for the competence and national identity of the Member States. Nevertheless, it is clear that with its judgments in Coman, SM and now Pancharevo, the CJEU has embarked on a progressive path, with openness to diversity and new family forms, for the benefit of mobile Union citizens.

La France préside le Conseil de l’Union européenne pour six mois. À cette occasion, la Délégation des barreaux de France et Lefebvre Dalloz s’associent pour vous proposer ce podcast dont la vocation est de sensibiliser sur les travaux et les actions conduites dans le domaine de la justice au plan européen.

en lire plus

Introduction

The case arises from a a long-running family dispute of the parties over the distribution of assets left by their late brother in the USA.  Z. is the sister, and M. the brother of the deceased. Over the course of several years, the parties entered into a series of agreements with an eye towards efficiently dividing the assets and providing for the effective management of the properties and businesses included in the estate. All attempts to settle the dispute amicably failed. Eventually, the case was decided in favour of Z. by arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules. The efforts of M. to vacate the award failed. As a next step, Z. sought recognition and enforcement of the US award in Greece. First and second instance courts decided in favour of Z. Upon second appeal (cassation) of M., the Supreme Court ruled that the Athens Court of Appeal failed to examine two grounds of appeal raised by M. The case was sent back to the appellate court [Supreme Court nr. 635/20.5.2021]

Stage 1: USA

The parties entered into an agreement known as the “U.S. Agreement,” which set out a process for: (1) an accounting of the affairs of the . . . [U.S. Companies] during the relevant time period leading to a report detailing [an] auditor’s findings; (2) . . . [setting] a period in which the Parties would ‘confer amicably and in good faith to agree on the amount of any distributions or payments that should be made in order to’ realize the objective of equal distribution of the assets or their proceeds and of the earnings of the assets in the relevant period; (3) [and making] a determination as a result of this process as to ‘the extent to which [either Party] has received a disproportionate share of prior income or other distributions in respect of [the U.S. Companies] and the amount of such excess benefit.

The U.S. Agreement further provided that, if the parties failed to agree on the amount of the Party Distribution by way of the auditor’s report, “the amount of the D. Distribution, the P. Distribution, the T. D. and/or the Party Distribution as applicable shall be determined by an arbitration administered by the American Arbitration Association in accordance with its Commercial Arbitration Rules,” subject to confirmation by any court having appropriate jurisdiction.

The audit contemplated in the U.S. Agreement was never completed, and the parties were unable to come to reach an agreement on the amount of the Party Distribution. After several years of litigation in both federal and state courts, Z. instituted the subject arbitration in 2009. The arbitration panel issued its Final Award on March 20, 2014, finding in favor of Z. in the amount of approximately $10.8 million, inclusive of approximately $4.8 million of prejudgment interest.

1. filed a petition to vacate the Final Award on June 16, 2014, and on August 29, 2014, he filed the instant motion in support of that petition. The Petitioner’s Arguments for Vacatur were the following:
2. a) Failure to Determine the U.S. Company Distributions.
3. b) Manifest Disregard of the Law and Agreement – “Redefining” the Term “Received”.
4. c) Award of Prejudgment Interest as Exceeding Authority.

The Southern District Of New York decided that the Petitioner’s motion to vacate the arbitration panel’s Final Award is denied and Respondent’s cross-motion to confirm the award is granted.

Stage 2: Greece

The application to recognize and enforce the US award was granted by the Athens Court of 1st Instance [nr. 443/2018, published in: Epitheorissi Politikis Dikonomias (Civil Procedure Law Review) 2017, 643 et seq, note Kastanidis]. The appeal against the first instance court was dismissed [Athens Court of Appeal 5625/2018, unreported]. The final appeal was successful. The Supreme Court ruled that the appellate court did not examine two cassation grounds:

1. No reference is made in the judgment of the Athens CoA in regards to the lack of an arbitration agreement, as evidenced by points 1-9 of the US Agreement, which refer to an arbitral determination, not an award.
2. No reference is made in the judgment of the Athens CoA in regards to the excess of authority by the arbitrators.

As a result, the Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the Athens CoA, and ordered Z. to pay the costs of the proceedings.

Comments

An issue that was not examined by the Supreme Court was the conduct of M. during the arbitral proceedings, and the grounds invoked for vacating the AAA award. There is no evidence that M. challenged the authority of the arbitration panel to issue an award. In addition, the arguments for vacatur do not challenge the panel’s authority, save the award of Prejudgment Interest under (c), which was dismissed by the Greek instance courts as contrary to the principle of non-revision on the merits.

The question has been addresses by legal scholarship as follows:

One issue that is not dealt with in the Convention is what happens if a party to an arbitration is aware of a defect in the arbitration procedure but does not object in the course of the arbitration. The same issue arises in connection with jurisdictional objections that are raised at the enforcement stage for the first time. The general principle of good faith (also sometimes referred to as waiver or estoppel), that applies to procedural as well as to substantive matters, should prevent parties from keeping points up their sleeves [ICCA Guide to the NYC, 2011, p. 81].

The Federal Arbitrazh (Commercial) Court for the Northwestern District in the Russian Federation considered that an objection of lack of arbitral jurisdiction that had not been raised in the arbitration could not be raised for the first time in the enforcement proceedings; The Spanish Supreme Court said that it could not understand that the respondent “now rejects the arbitration agreement on grounds it could have raised in the arbitration” [ICCA Guide to the NYC, 2011, p. 82]

It is generally accepted that the party resisting enforcement of the award may, under certain circumstances, be barred from raising a defense under Article V(1)(c) in the exequatur proceedings. Preclusion may, in particular, occur if the party resisting enforcement has taken part in the arbitral proceedings without objecting to the jurisdiction or competence of the arbitral tribunal when it had the opportunity to do so [Wolff/(Borris/Hennecke), New York Convention, Second Edition, 2019, p. 340 nr. 257].

Conclusion

It is not entirely clear whether the judgment of the Athens Court of Appeal did in fact fail to take into account the grounds aforementioned. As mentioned above, the judgment has not been published in the legal press. However, the extracts reproduced in the ruling of the Supreme Court allow the reader to have some doubts. In any event, the case will be re-examined by the Court of Appeal, and most probably, will end up again before the Supreme Court…

From 7 to 13 February 2022, Università degli Studi, Milan and the European Court of Arbitration organize, in cooperation with Comitato Italiano dell’Arbitrato, the Milan-based international law firms Bonelli Erede and DLA Piper, with the support of the Centre of Research on Domestic, European and Transnational Dispute Settlement, the Milan Arbitration Week which, through various events, deals with domestic arbitration, international commercial arbitration and arbitration in the field of international investment.

All the information is available at this link: https://www.transnational-dispute-management.com/news/20220207.pdf

Brill launched a new Journal, The Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, which is managed by a group of professors from the University of Naples and the Scuola Superiore Sant’Anna in Pisa. The aim of the Journal is to publish contributions on International law, private International law, EU law and comparative law. In this regard, see the recently launched a call for papers on “The European Union and International Arbitration”.

Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo / Commission (Rejet de plainte)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission rejetant la plainte déposée par un grossiste polonais

Scania e.a. / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal rejette le recours de Scania et maintient l’amende de 880,52 millions d’euros infligée par la Commission pour sa participation à l’entente entre constructeurs de camions

Polskie Górnictwo Naftowe i Gazownictwo / Commission (Engagements de Gazprom)
Concurrence
Le Tribunal rejette le recours à l’encontre de la décision de la Commission rendant obligatoires les engagements présentés par Gazprom en vue de remédier aux préoccupations concurrentielles de la Commission relatives aux marchés nationaux de la fourniture de gaz de gros en amont dans les pays de l’Europe centrale et orientale

Due to the ‘semaine blanche’, February is usually a short month at the Court of Justice. However, several PIL-related activities are worth noting this particular February. They start this Thursday with the judgment in C-20/21, LOT Polish Airlines. A chamber of three judges (Rodin, Bonichot, Spineanu-Matei) will decide on the request by the Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, addressing jurisdiction under Article 7(1), of the Brussels I bis Regulation:

Must Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters be interpreted as meaning that the place of performance, within the meaning of that provision, in respect of a flight consisting of a confirmed single booking for the entire journey and divided into two or more legs, can also be the place of arrival of the first leg of the journey where transport on those legs of the journey is performed by two separate air carriers and the claim for compensation brought on the basis of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 arises from the delay of the first leg of the journey and is brought against the operating air carrier of that first leg?

An advocate general’s opinion was deemed not necessary.

A public hearing in case C-646/20, Senatsverwaltung für Inneres und Sport, will take place on Tuesday 8th. The request focuses on Regulation Brussels II bis. The main proceedings concern the question of whether a private divorce granted in Italy further to concurring statements by the spouses before the civil registrar can be recorded in the German register of marriages without any additional recognition procedure.

The Bundesgerichtshof is asking the Court of Justice two short, straight-forward questions:

1. Is the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Article 12 of Decreto Legge (Italian Decree-Law) No 132 of 12 September 2014 (‘DL No 132/2014’) a divorce within the meaning of the Brussels IIa Regulation?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is the dissolution of a marriage on the basis of Article 12 of DL No 132/2014 to be treated in accordance with the rule in Article 46 of the Brussels IIa Regulation on authentic instruments and agreements?

The reporting judge is M. Safjan, for the Grand Chamber (Lenaerts, Bay Larsen, Arabadjiev, Prechal, Regan, Rodin, Jarukaitis, Ilešič, Bonichot, Safjan, Kumin, Arastey Sahún, Gavalec, Csehi, Spineanu-Matei). After the hearing, Advocate General Collins will announce the date of publication of his opinion.

Two days later (10 February), the Court will hand down the judgment in the case of C-595/20, ShareWood Switzerland, on the interpretation of the Rome I Regulation. The requesting court is the Austrian Oberster Gerichtshof:

Is Article 6(4)(c) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations to be interpreted as meaning that a contract for the purchase of teak and balsa trees between an undertaking and a consumer, which is intended to confer ownership of the trees, which are then managed, harvested and sold for profit, and which includes for that purpose a lease agreement and a service agreement, is to be regarded as ‘a contract relating to a right in rem in immovable property or a tenancy of immovable property’ within the meaning of that provision?

Once again M. Safjian is the reporting judge, sitting with judges Jääskinen and Gavalec. The preliminary ruling will be taken without opinion.

On the same day, a chamber composed by judges Prechal, Passer, Biltgen, Wahl and Rossi (reporting), will rule on C-522/20, OE. The referring court – the Oberster Gerichtshof, Austria, acting as Court of Cassation in a matter of divorce- has asked the following to the Court in Luxembourg:

1. Does the sixth indent of Article 3[(1)](a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 infringe the prohibition of discrimination in Article 18 TFEU on the ground that it provides, as a precondition to the jurisdiction of the courts of the State of residence, depending on the nationality of the applicant, for a shorter period of residence than the fifth indent of Article 3[(1)](a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003?
2. If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does that infringement of the prohibition of discrimination mean that, based on the fundamental rule laid down in the fifth indent of Article 3[(1)](a) of Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003, a period of residence of 12 months is required for all applicants, irrespective of their nationality, in order to rely upon the jurisdiction of the courts in the place of residence or is it to be assumed that a period of 6 months’ residence is the precondition for all applicants?

Among other, the applicant submits that under fifth and sixth indents of Article 3[(1)](a) of Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis), jurisdiction for divorce proceedings is established for nationals of the forum State after just 6 months’ residence in that State, whereas nationals of other Member States must have been resident for at least 1 year; that this is unequal treatment solely on grounds of nationality and therefore infringes Article 18 TFEU.

No advocate general’s opinion has been asked for.

Finally, on 24 February Advocate General Szpunar will deliver his opinion in the case of C-501/20, M P A, giving us his views on habitual residence, forum necessitatiss and denial of justice in family matters. The request to the Court comes from the Audiencia Provincial of Barcelona; it relates to divorce proceedings of spouses who happen to be employees of the European Commission in its delegation in Togo. At stake are as well the dissolution of the matrimonial property regime, the determination of the regime and procedures for exercising custody and parental responsibility over the minor children, the grant of a maintenance allowance for the children and rules for the use of the family home in Togo. The interpretation requested affect the Brussels II bis Regulation, Regulation No 4/2009, and Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union.

The questions are:

1. How is the term ‘habitual residence’ in Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003 and Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009 to be interpreted in the case of the nationals of a Member State who are staying in a non-Member State by reason of the duties conferred on them as members of the contract staff of the European Union and who, in the non-Member State, are recognised as members of the diplomatic staff of the European Union, when their stay in that State is linked to the performance of their duties for the European Union?
2. If, for the purposes of Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003 and Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009, the determination of the habitual residence of the spouses depended on their status as EU contract staff in a non-Member State, how would this affect the determination of the habitual residence of the minor children in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003?
3. In the event that the children are not regarded as habitually resident in the non-Member State, can the connecting factor of the mother’s nationality, her residence in Spain prior to the marriage, the Spanish nationality of the minor children and their birth in Spain be taken into account for the purposes of determining habitual residence in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003?
4. If it is established that the parents and children are not habitually resident in a Member State, given that, under Regulation No 2201/2003 there is no other Member State with jurisdiction to decide on the applications, does the fact that the defendant is a national of a Member State preclude the application of the residual clause contained in Articles 7 and 14 of Regulation No 2201/2003?
5. If it is established that the parents and children are not habitually resident in a Member State for the purpose of determining child maintenance, how is the forum necessitatis in Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 to be interpreted and, in particular, what are the requirements for considering that proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or enforced or prove impossible in a non-Member State with which the dispute is closely connected (in this case, Togo)? Must the party have initiated or attempted to initiate proceedings in that State with a negative result and does the nationality of one of the parties to the dispute constitute a sufficient connection with the Member State?
6. In a case like this, where the spouses have strong links with Member States (nationality, former residence), is it contrary to Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights if no Member State is considered to have jurisdiction under the provisions of the Regulations?

The case has been entrusted to Judges Prechal, Passer, Biltgen, Wahl, and Rossi (reporting).

Le Conseil constitutionnel prononce un non-lieu à statuer sur une question prioritaire de constitutionnalité portant sur les articles L. 2141-1 et L. 3123-1 du code de la commande publique excluant de plein droit des procédures de passation des marchés publics et des contrats de concession. Il considère que les principes de nécessité et d’individualisation des peines et le droit à un recours juridictionnel effectif ne constituent pas des principes inhérents à l’identité constitutionnelle de la France. 

en lire plus

The 35th Annual Survey of Choice of Law in the American Courts (2021) has been posted to SSRN. The authors of this year’s survey owe an enormous debt to Symeon Symeonides who has, over the past three decades, provided an extraordinary service by authoring the previous thirty annual surveys. Having now finished our first survey, we are all the more impressed with his work. Thank you Symeon — and thank you all for reading.

John Coyle (University of North Carolina School of Law)
William Dodge (University of California, Davis School of Law)
Aaron Simowitz (Willamette University College of Law)

The appeal in The Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Cie SA & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 has been dismissed. I reviewed the first instance judgment here. I conclude that review writing ‘Those criticising the intensity of jurisdiction squabbles will find ammunition in this 497 para judgment.’ The Court of Appeal judgment is another 152 paras and as Andrew Dickinson also notes, Carr LJ, too, is critical: [12]

There will of course be cases where a novel and/or complex point of law needs to be debated fully and decided and, as foreshadowed above, this litigation raises some new, albeit relatively short, legal issues. Further, the sums involved are substantial and the allegations made are serious. However, these features did not create a licence to turn a jurisdictional dispute into an extensive and essentially self-standing piece of litigation. The costs incurred below ran to many, many millions of pounds: the interim payment orders in respect of the Respondents’ costs amounted to £6.88 million against a claimed total of some £13.5 million.

The issues on appeal are listed [41] ff and they of course reflect the discussion I summarised in my post on the first instance findings. I list them below and summarise the Court’s findings.

Article 23 formal requirements (involving Banque Pictet and Mr Bertherat only):

i) For the purposes of the requirement in Article 23(1)(a) that a jurisdiction agreement must be in or evidenced in writing, was the Judge right to conclude that it was unnecessary for the GBCs containing the EJCs (‘exclusive jurisdiction clauses, GAVC) actually to have been communicated to PIFSS?

ii) If so, was the Judge right to find that Banque Pictet did not have the better of the argument that the GBCs were communicated to PIFSS prior to 2012?

Lady Justice Carr is right in my view e.g. [67] that CJEU authority does not require material communication of GTCs etc which contain EJCs. Rather, the judge needs to establish ‘real consent’,  in the spirit of the Raport Jenard with a rejection of excessive formality.

Article 23 material validity (involving all Pictet and Mirabaud Respondents (save for Pictet Asia, Pictet Bahamas and, for the avoidance of doubt, also Mr Amouzegar and Mr Argand)):

i) Was the Judge right to conclude that the “particular legal relationship(s)” in connection with which the EJCs were entered into for the purpose of Article 23 was the totality of the legal relationships between the parties forming part of the banker/customer relationship between them?

ii) Was the Judge right to conclude that the relevant Respondents had the better of the argument that the disputes relating to (a) the Pictet/Mirabaud bribery claims; (b) the Pictet/Mirabaud accessory claims “ar[o]se out of” those “particular legal relationship(s)”?

The term ‘material validity’ is employed both in first instance and at the Court of Appeal although it is not quite correct; what is really meant is what Henshaw J called the ‘proximity’ requirement: which ‘disputes’ ‘relate to’ the matters covered by the EJCs? Here, Carr LJ sides eventually [98] with the judge mostly as a matter of factual analysis: neither CJEU Apple nor CDC require a restrictive approach where parties have formulated the EJC very widely. The judge carefully considered the wording of the clause and on contractual construction was right to find that the disputes at issue fell within it.

Scope of EJCs (as a matter of the relevant domestic law) (involving all Pictet and Mirabaud Respondents (save for Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas and again, for the avoidance of doubt, Mr Amouzegar and Mr Argand)):

i) Was the Judge right to find that PIFSS had the better of the argument that, on the true construction of the relevant EJCs, the disputes relating to the wider accessory claims fell outside the scope of the applicable EJCs?

ii) (Mr Mirabaud only): Was the Judge right to conclude that PIFSS had the better of the argument that claims against Mr Mirabaud relating to events after 1 January 2010 fell outside the scope of the relevant EJCs?

This issue relates to whether the EJCs, as a matter of construction under Swiss (or Luxembourg) law – which the judge had discussed obiter, did not extend to cover the wider accessory claims. [101]: in summary the relevant parties suggest that, having correctly recognised that what was alleged by PIFSS were unitary schemes arising out of continuing courses of conduct, the Judge was then wrong to conclude that they did not have the better of the argument that the wider accessory claims also fell within the EJCs.

Carr LJ deals rather swiftly with these discussions, again I feel finding mostly that the judge’s analysis was mostly factual (albeit seen from the viewpoint of Swiss and /or Luxembourg law) and not incorrect.

Article 6: (the number of Respondents to whom the Article 6 challenge is relevant will depend on the outcome of the appeals on the issues above, but on any view the issue of principle arises in relation to Mr Amouzegar and Mr Argand):

i) Was the Judge right to conclude that, for the purpose of Article 6, the Court was not required to consider solely the risk of irreconcilable judgments between the claim against the anchor defendant and the claim(s) against the proposed Article 6 defendant(s) but rather was permitted to consider other relevant circumstances including, in particular, the risk of irreconcilable judgments between the claims sought to be made against the proposed defendant and other claims in other member states?

ii) Did the Judge apply the test correctly in relation to each relevant Respondent?

This I find is the most important part of the judgment for it is in my view the one which most intensely deals with a point of law. Readers may want to refer to my earlier post for a summary of the A6 (Lugano) issues. The judge had found against A6 jurisdiction, also following Privatbank‘s ‘desirability’ approach. Parties upon appeal argue [110] that the Judge’s interpretation results in exclusive jurisdiction clauses having practical effects well beyond the scope of their application, with the collateral effect of conferring on them a “gravitational pull” which is inconsistent with the proper interpretation of A23 Lugano. PIFSS submits that it undermines the drive for legal certainty that motivates the strict approach to A6 identified in the authorities. They also suggested (in oral submission) that for A6 purposes only actual, and not merely potential, proceedings are properly to be taken into account. 

The CA however [112] confirms the relevance of future as well as extant claims and generally supports the flexible approach to A6. Carr J concedes [131] that this approach can be said to give “gravitational pull” to A23 and suggests ‘(t)here is nothing objectionable about that, given the respect to be accorded to party autonomy.’

I do not think this is correct. Including broadly construed ‘related’ claims in choice of court would seem to deny, rather than protect party autonomy: for if parties had really wanted to see them litigated in the choice of court venue, they ought to have contractually include them.

The issue of desirability per Privatbank is not discussed and therefore remains open (compare EuroEco Fuels).

Forum non conveniens: Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas:

i) Depending on the outcome of the issues above, was the Judge right to conclude that PIFSS had not shown that England was clearly the appropriate forum for the resolution of the claims against Pictet Asia and Pictet Bahamas?

Here the swift conclusion [143] is that the judge’s finding that PIFSS had not shown that England was clearly the proper forum is unimpeachable.

A lot is riding on this jurisdictional disagreement.  Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court was refused by the CA but may still be sought with the SC itself.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, big chunks of Chapter 2.

 

Choice of court and anchor defendants, Lugano Convention, Brussels Ia.
Appeal dismissed. For the 1st instance judgment see https://t.co/7d1LGpleY4
Public Institution for Social Security v Banque Pictet & Ors [2022] EWCA Civ 29 (26 January 2022)https://t.co/WvbXbk1o59

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 26, 2022

The new issue of International & Comparative Law Quarterly (Volume 71, Issue 1) is out. Some of articles concern directly or indirectly questions of private international law. Their abstracts are provided below.

The whole issue is available here. Some of articles are published in open access.

F. Rielaender, Aligning the Brussels Regime with the Representative Actions Directive

European private international law has long been recognised as improperly set up to deal with cross-border collective redress. In light of this shortcoming, it seems unfortunate that the private international law implications of the Representative Actions Directive (Directive (EU) No 2020/1828) have not yet been addressed coherently by the European legislator. This article examines to what extent the policy of promoting collective redress can be supported, even if only partially, through a reinterpretation of the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels Ia Regulation. Furthermore, it discusses which legislative measures need to be adopted to better accommodate collective redress mechanisms within the Brussels regime.

M. Risvas, International Law as the Basis for Extending Arbitration Agreements Concluded by States or State Entities to Non-Signatories

This article explores the role of international law in relation to the extension of arbitration agreements contained in contracts concluded by States (or State entities) with non-signatory State entities (or States). As contract-based arbitrations involving States or State entities are on the rise, identifying the legal framework governing which parties are covered by the relevant arbitration agreements is of practical importance. The analysis demonstrates that international law forms part of the relevant law, alongside other applicable laws including law of contract, law of the seat and transnational law, concerning the extension of arbitration agreements concluded by States or State entities to non-signatories. Previous analyses have neglected the role of international law by not distinguishing contract-based arbitrations involving private parties from contract-based arbitrations involving States or State entities. Public international law recognises that arbitration agreements can be extended to non-signatories on the basis of implied consent, or abuse of separate legal personality and estoppel. Therefore, foreign investors can rely on international law to extend arbitration agreements to non-signatories in arbitrations conducted under investment contracts concluded by States or State entities, even if the relevant domestic law is agnostic or hostile to this. This has significant legal, and practical, importance.

T. Hartley, Basic Principles of Jurisdiction in Private International Law: The European Union, the United States and England

This article consists of a comparative study of the basic principles underlying the rules of jurisdiction in private international law in commercial cases in the law of the European Union, the United States and England. It considers the objectives which these rules seek to achieve (protection of the rights of the parties and respect for the interests of foreign States) and the extent to which these objectives are attained. It takes tort claims, especially in the field of products-liability, as an example and considers which system has the most exorbitant rules. It suggests explanations for the differences found.

Giovanni Zarra (University of Naples) authored a book titled Imperativeness in Private International Law – A View from Europe, with Springer/T.M.C. Asser Press.

This book centres on the ways in which the concept of imperativeness has found expression in private international law (PIL) and discusses “imperative norms”, and “imperativeness” as their intrinsic quality, examining the rules or principles that protect fundamental interests and/or the values of a state so as to require their application at any cost and without exceptions.

Discussing imperative norms in PIL means referring to international public policy and overriding mandatory rules: in this book the origins, content, scope and effects of both these forms of imperativeness are analyzed in depth. This is a subject deserving further study, considering that very divergent opinions are still emerging within academia and case law regarding the differences between international public policy and overriding mandatory rules as well as with regard to their way of functioning.

By using an approach mainly based on an analysis of the case law of the CJEU and of the courts of the various European countries, the book delves into the origin of imperativeness since Roman law, explains how imperative norms have evolved in the different conceptions of private international law, and clarifies the foundation of the differences between international public policy and overriding mandatory rules and how these concepts are used in EU Regulations on PIL (and in the practice related to these sources of law).

Finally, the work discusses the influence of EU and public international law sources on the concept of imperativeness within the legal systems of European countries and whether a minimum content of imperativeness – mainly aimed at ensuring the protection of fundamental human rights in transnational relationships – between these countries has emerged.

The book will prove an essential tool for academics with an interest in the analysis of these general concepts and practitioners having to deal with the functioning of imperative norms in litigation cases and in the drafting of international contracts.

The table of contents can be accessed here.

Annexes A and B to the insolvency Regulation list, respectively, the national insolvency proceedings and national insolvency practitioners (as notified by Member States) to which that Regulation applies. They have been replaced by Regulation (EU) 2021/2260 of 15 December 2021.

The new Annexes are operative as of 9 January 2022

The reasons for the amendment are explained given in Recital 2 of the Regulation:

In October 2020, the Netherlands notified the Commission of recent changes in its national insolvency law which introduced a new preventive insolvency scheme, as well as new types of insolvency practitioners. That notification was followed in December 2020 by notifications from Italy, Lithuania, Cyprus and Poland relating to recent changes in their national law which introduced new types of insolvency proceedings or insolvency practitioners. Following the submission by the Commission of its proposal for an amending Regulation, further notifications were received from Germany, Hungary and Austria relating to recent changes in their national law which introduced new types of insolvency proceedings or insolvency practitioners. Subsequently, Italy clarified the date of entry into force of its new provisions on insolvency and restructuring which it had notified to the Commission in December 2020, and notified an amendment to a previous notification. Those new types of insolvency proceedings and insolvency practitioners comply with.

Neither Ireland nor Denmark are taking part in the adoption of the Regulation. Accordingly, they are not bound by it or subject to its application.

La France préside le Conseil de l’Union européenne pour six mois. À cette occasion, la Délégation des barreaux de France et Lefebvre Dalloz s’associent pour vous proposer ce podcast dont la vocation est de sensibiliser sur les travaux et les actions conduites dans le domaine de la justice au plan européen.

en lire plus

Sātiņi-S
Agriculture
La Cour interprète les dispositions du droit de l’Union en matière de paiements compensatoires octroyés au titre de Natura 2000

Ligue des droits humains
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Selon l’avocat général Pitruzzella, le transfert ainsi que le traitement automatisé généralisé et indifférencié des données PNR sont compatibles avec les droits fondamentaux au respect de la vie privée et à la protection des données à caractère personnel

The second issue of 2021 of Giustizia Consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released and it features:

Silvia Barona Vilar (Professor at the University of València) Sfide e pericoli delle ADR nella società digitale e algoritmica del secolo XXI (Challenges and Pitfalls of ADR in the Digital and Algorithmic Society of the XXI Century; in Italian)

In the XX century, dispute resolution was characterized by the leading role played by State courts: however, this situation has begun to change. With modernity and globalization has come the search of ways to ensure the ‘deconflictualisation’ of social and economic relations and solve conflicts arising out of them. In this context, ADR – and now ODR – have had a decisive impulse in the last decades and are now enshrined in the digital society of the XXI century. ADR mechanisms are, in fact, approached as means to ensure access to justice, favouring at the same time social peace and citizens’ satisfaction. Nevertheless, some uncertainties remain and may affect ADR’s impulse and future consolidation: among such uncertainties are the to-date scarce negotiation culture for conflict resolution, the need for training in negotiation tools, the need for State involvement in these new scenarios, as well as the attentive look at artificial intelligence, both in its ‘soft’ version (welfare) and its ‘hard’ version (replacement of human beings with machine intelligence).

Amy J. Schmitz (Professor at the Ohio State University), Lola Akin Ojelabi (Associate Professor at La Trobe University, Melbourne) and John Zeleznikow (Professor at La Trobe University, Melbourne), Researching Online Dispute Resolution to Expand Access to Justice

In this paper, the authors argue that Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) may expand Access to Justice (A2J) if properly designed, implemented, and continually improved. The article sets the stage for this argument by providing background on ODR research, as well as theory, to date. However, the authors note how the empirical research has been lacking and argue for more robust and expansion of studies. Moreover, they propose that research must include consideration of culture, as well as measures to address the needs of self-represented litigants and the most vulnerable. It is one thing to argue that ODR should be accessible, appropriate, equitable, efficient, and effective. However, ongoing research is necessary to ensure that these ideals remain core to ODR design and implementation.

Marco Gradi (Associate Professor at the University of Messina), Teoria dell’accertamento consensuale: storia di un’incomprensione (The Doctrine of ‘Negotiation of Ascertainment’: Story of a Misunderstanding; in Italian)

This article examines the Italian doctrine of ‘negotiation of ascertainment’ (negozio di accertamento), by means of which the parties put an end to a legal dispute by determining the content of their relationship by mutual consent. Notably, by characterizing legal ascertainment as a binding judgment vis-à-vis the parties’ pre-existing legal relationship, the author contributes to overcoming the misunderstandings that have always denoted the debate in legal scholarship, thus laying down the foundations towards a complete theory on consensual ascertainment.

Cristina M. Mariottini (Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law), The Singapore Convention on International Mediated Settlement Agreements: A New Status for Party Autonomy in the Non-Adjudicative Process

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (the ‘Singapore Convention’), adopted in 2018 and entered into force in 2020, is designed to facilitate cross-border trade and commerce, in particular by enabling disputing parties to enforce and invoke settlement agreements in the cross-border setting without going through the cumbersome and potentially uncertain conversion of the settlement into a court judgment or an arbitral award. Against this background, the Convention frames a new status for mediated settlements: namely, on the one hand it converts agreements that would otherwise amount to a private contractual act into an instrument eligible for cross-border circulation in Contracting States and, on the other hand, it sets up an international, legally binding and partly harmonized system for such circulation. After providing an overview of the defining features of this new international treaty, this article contextualizes the Singapore Convention in the realm of international consent-based dispute resolution mechanisms.

 

Observatory on Legislation and Regulations

Ivan Cardillo (Senior Lecturer at the Zhongnan University of Economics and Law in Wuhan), Recenti sviluppi della mediazione in Cina (Recent developments in mediation in China; in Italian)

This article examines the most recent developments on mediation in China. The analysis revolves around, in particular, two prominent documents: namely, the ‘14th Five-Year Plan for National Economic and Social Development and Long-Range Objectives for 2035’ and the ‘Guiding Opinions of the Supreme People’s Court on Accelerating Steps to Motivate the Mediation Platforms of the People’s Courts to Enter Villages, Residential Communities and Community Grids.’ In particular, the so-called ‘Fengqiao experience’ ? which developed as of the 1960s in the Fengqiao community and has become a model of proximity justice ? remains the benchmark practice for the development of a model based on the three principles of self-government, government by law, and government by virtue. In this framework, mediation is increasingly identified as the main echanism for dispute resolution and social management: in this respect, the increasing use of technology proves to be crucial for the development of mediation platforms and the efficiency of the entire judicial system. Against this background, the complex relationship becomes apparent between popular and judicial mediation, their coordination and their importance for governance and social stability: arguably, such a relationship will carry with it in the future the need to balance the swift dispute resolution with the protection of fundamental rights.

Angela D’Errico (Fellow at the University of Macerata), Le Alternative Dispute Resolution nelle controversie pubblicistiche: verso una minore indisponibilità degli interessi legittimi? (Alternative Dispute Resolution in Public Sector Disputes: Towards an Abridged Non-Availability of Legitimate Interests?; in Italian)

This work analyzes the theme of ADR in publicity disputes and, in particular, it’s understood to deepen the concepts of the availability of administrative power and legitimate interests that hinder the current applicability of ADRs in public matters. After having taken into consideration the different types of ADR in the Italian legal system with related peculiarities and criticalities, it’s understood, in the final part of the work, to propose a new opening to the recognition of these alternative instruments to litigation for a better optimization of justice.

 

Observatory on Jurisprudence

Domenico Dalfino (Professor at the University ‘Aldo Moro’ in Bari), Mediazione e opposizione a decreto ingiuntivo, tra vizi di fondo e ipocrisia del legislatore (Mediation and Opposition to an Injunction: Between Underlying Flaws and Hypocrisy of the Legislator; in Italian)

In 2020, the plenary session of the Italian Court of Cassation, deciding a question of particular significance, ruled that the burden of initiating the mandatory mediation procedure in proceedings opposing an injunction lies with the creditor. This principle sheds the light on further pending questions surrounding mandatory mediation.

 

Observatory on Practices

Andrea Marighetto (Visiting Lecturer at the Federal University of Rio Grande do Sul) and Luca Dal Pubel (Lecturer at the San Diego State University), Consumer Protection and Online Dispute Resolution in Brazil

With the advent of the 4th Industrial Revolution (4IR), Information and Communication Technology (ICT) including the internet, computers, digital technology, and electronic services have become absolute protagonists of our lives, without which even the exercise of basic rights can be harmed. The Covid-19 pandemic has increased and further emphasized the demand to boost the use of ICT to ensure access to basic services including access to justice. Specifically, at a time when consumer relations represent the majority of mass legal relations, the demand for a system of speedy access to justice has become necessary. Since the early ’90s, Brazil has been at the forefront of consumer protection. In the last decade, it has taken additional steps to enhance consumer protection by adopting Consumidor.gov, a public Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) platform for consumer disputes. This article looks at consumer protection in Brazil in the context of the 4IR and examines the role that ODR and specifically the Consumidor.gov platform play in improving consumer protection and providing consumers with an additional instrument to access justice.

In addition to the foregoing, this issue features the following book review by Maria Rosaria Ferrarese (Professor at the University of Cagliari): Antoine Garapon and Jean Lassègue, Giustizia digitale. Determinismo tecnologico e libertà (Italian version, edited by M.R. Ferrarese), Bologna, Il Mulino, 2021, 1-264.

Commission / Espagne (Obligation d’information en matière fiscale)
Libre circulation des personnes
La législation nationale obligeant les résidents fiscaux espagnols à déclarer leurs biens ou leurs droits situés à l’étranger est contraire au droit de l’Union