Agrégateur de flux

The Revista Electrónica de Estudios Internacionales (REEI), whose current editor-in-chief is Prof. de Miguel Asensio, a founding member of the EAPIL, is an open-access journal published by the Spanish Association of International Law and International Relations Professors (AEPDIRI). The journal exists since 2000; it is open to specialized research works on public international law, private international law and international relations. Those willing to submit a paper are invited to comply with the instructions available here.

The latest issue is number 41, of June 2021. The following contents are of direct interest for PIL:

José Ignacio Paredes Pérez, Contratos de suministro de contenidos y servicios digitales B2C: problemas de calificación y tribunales competentes (B2C contracts for the supply of digital content and digital services: problems of characterization and competent courts)

The purpose of this study is to analyse the characterization problems posed, for the purposes of the application of the European rules on international jurisdiction, by the legal actions available to the consumer in the new European regulation on improving consumer access to digital goods and services, and the possible fragmentation of litigation relating to the same infringing conduct under Directive (EU) 2019/770 and Regulation (EU) 2016/679. In the context of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the autonomous characterization of the legal actions available under the new regulation, and the way in which this is done, is decisive, depending on whether or not the contract falls within the scope of articles 17 to 19.

María del Carmen Chéliz Inglés, La Convención de Singapur y los acuerdos de mediación comercial internacional (The Singapore Convention and the international commercial mediation agreements)

The Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements resulting from mediation represents a milestone in the determined promotion of this dispute resolution mechanism and puts an end to the absence of a harmonized legal framework to regulate this issue. The most significant advance is that it gives a new legal status to the agreements resulting from international commercial mediation, which become directly enforceable in all the States that ratify the Convention. In this context, the objective of this work is to analyze the key issues of the Singapore Convention, highlighting its lights and shadows, and assess what repercussions the adherence to said normative instrument would have on the Spanish legal system.

Georgina Garriga Suau, Blockchain-based smart contracts and conflict rules for business-to-business operations (Blockchain-based smart contracts y normas de conflicto para operaciones entre profesionales)

In recent years, the irruption of blockchain technology has enhanced the impact of smart contracts in the international trade scenario, although not without raising some problems, particularly, in terms of Private International Law. This paper, thus, addresses such problems when it comes to determining the applicable law from a business-to-business perspective leaving aside the particular problems raised by the conflict-of-law rules oriented to protect the weaker party to a contract. The analysis, however, starts with a general approach to the two concepts which are the object of this paper: smart contracts and blockchain technology.

As usual, the journal contains as well a section commenting on selected relevant decisions on PIL delivered in the six months prior to its publication. Reviews on recent monographs or collective books follow.

The remaining contributions in this issue relate to public international law or international relations. Those (like me) with a specific interest in procedural law will surely find worth reading these two:

Laura Aragonés Molina, Unidad o fragmentación en el Derecho internacional procesal: la revisión de sentencias ante la Corte Internacional de Justicia y el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos (Unity or fragmentation in international procedural law: revision of judgments at the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights)

The increasing specialization of Public International Law and the diversity of international courts and tribunals with specific competences ratione materiae and personae in the multiple international normative sectors are still generating challenges for coherence, consistency and predictability of international jurisprudence. Procedural rules and principles may have a cohesive effect on judicial practice and foster a judicial dialogue and cross-fertilization at a procedural level. It may contribute to the unity of the international legal order through the formation of common rules of procedure. In this paper we explore this cohesive effect exhaustively, studying the interaction between the International Court of Justice and the European Court of Human Rights when they interpret and apply the revision provision.

Montserrat Abad Castelos, Rendición de cuentas por los crímenes cometidos durante el califato del Daesh: las pruebas como clave (Accountability for crimes committed during the ISIS caliphate: evidence as key)

This article seeks to determine if evidence can be a way to overcome the existing difficulties in the field of justice to hold Daesh members accountable for the atrocity crimes committed in Syria and Iraq during the armed conflicts that took place there. To get this, recent innovations are examined both the actors that collect and preserve evidence and the nature, characteristics and challenges that evidences pose. It will be concluded that the developments that are taking place are crucial and, consequently, have the capacity to trigger a paradigm shift that might be reflected in the outcome of pending prosecutions, in order to ensure the responsibility of the perpetrators of the crimes. Nevertheless, at the same time, it also shows how evidence is not the only key to take into account, since the problems related to the exercise of jurisdiction in domestic orders, which go far beyond the legal plane, will also be transcendental.

Par un arrêt du 9 septembre 2021, la Cour de justice se penche sur le champ d’application du règlement « obtention des preuves » et sur les liens entre les injonctions de payer et le règlement Bruxelles I bis, en rappelant en substance aux juridictions des États membres qu’elles ne sauraient abuser de la procédure de renvois préjudiciels.

en lire plus

Non lieu à renvoi

Avocats

Licenciement - Sanction disciplinaire

Affaire des "décrocheurs" des portraits du Président de la République

DEI / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule les décisions par lesquelles la Commission a constaté qu’une sentence arbitrale fixant un tarif d’électricité prétendument préférentiel ne comportait pas l’octroi d’un avantage au producteur d’aluminium Mytilinaios

Altice Europe / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal rejette le recours d’Altice Europe contre la décision de la Commission par laquelle lui ont été imposées deux amendes d’un montant total de 124,5 millions d’euros dans le cadre de l’acquisition de PT Portugal

On 9 September 2021, the Court of Justice handed down its judgment in UM (C‑277/20), in which, for the first time, it sheds light on doubts concerning the applicability of the EU Succession Regulation to donations mortis causa. The preliminary questions originate from the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof). In the judgment, the Court of Justice shared the view presented earlier this year in the opinion delivered by Advocate General de la Tour. This post is a slightly modified version of an Op-Ed published on EU Law Life.

Facts of the Case

ZL, a German national, had entered into a contract with his son UM and UM’s wife XU in 1975. Under the contract, where Austrian law was chosen as applicable, it was provided inter alia that ZL undertakes to erect a house on his immovable property located in Austria which would transfer mortis causa to XU and UM in equal shares. The transfer would occur on the death of ZL, but not before the house has been completed. If UM and XU were to divorce, the transfer mortis causa would be construed as having been made to UM alone. ZL expressly declared that the immovable property was to be transferred as a donation mortis causa. ZL authorised the transfer of ownership to be recorded in the Austrian Land Register upon production of a death certificate and proof that the conditions listed in the contract were fulfilled. Prior to the death of ZL in 2018, UM and his wife had divorced, and she had subsequently died.

Succession proceedings were commenced in Germany, the place of ZL’s habitual residence. For the purposes of those proceedings, UM applied to the court in Austria to be registered as the owner of the immovable property in question. Before the case reached the Austrian Supreme Court, the courts of two instances took the view that Austrian law is applicable and, therefore, in the absence of proof of satisfaction of the conditions laid down in the contract, rejected UM’s application. The Austrian Supreme Court decided to submit a preliminary request to the Court of Justice to clarify whether the donation mortis causa might be classified as an agreement as to succession covered by the material scope of the Succession Regulation and, in the affirmative, whether the choice of Austrian law as applicable remains valid.

Donation Mortis Causa as an Agreement as to Succession

To understand the first question posed to the Court of Justice, it is important to recall that pursuant to Article 3(1)(a) of the Succession Regulation, “succession” is defined as “succession to the estate of a deceased person”. It covers “all forms of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death”. This transfer may be “through intestate succession” or “under a disposition of property upon death”. At the same time, a disposition of property upon death means, inter alia, an “agreement as to succession” (Article 3(1)(d)), which is “an agreement … which, with or without consideration, creates, modifies or terminates rights to the future estate or estates of one or more persons party to the agreement” (Article 3(1)(b)).

Having the above in mind, the Court of Justice noted that the notion of an agreement as to succession must be given an autonomous interpretation (para. 29) and that it “refers generally to any agreement which, inter alia, creates rights to the future” estate (para. 30). The Court of Justice further cited the definition of succession provided for in Article 3(1)(a) of the Succession Regulation to conclude that “a contract under which a person provides for the future transfer, on death, of ownership of immovable property belonging to him or her and which confers rights in his or her future estate on other parties to that contract, constitutes an “agreement as to succession” within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b)” of the Regulation (para. 32). Referring to its previous judgment in Oberle (C-20/17), the Court of Justice stated that its conclusion is supported by the principle of unity of the succession (para. 33).

The Court also recalled that Article 1(2)(g) of the Succession Regulation excludes from its scope assets transferred otherwise than by succession, for example gifts, but it noted that this exclusion should be interpreted strictly (para. 34). As a result, where “a disposition of property contained in an agreement relating to a succession consists (…) in a donation, but does not take effect until the death of the deceased”, it is covered by the scope of the Regulation (para. 35).

When it comes to the differentiation between donations inter vivos and mortis causa, the opinion is more elaborate than the judgement. It even refers to Article 1(2)(d) of the 1989 HCCH Succession Convention and its explanatory reportunderlying that even though the Convention never entered into force it inspired many provisions of the Regulations (para. 38 of the opinion). As a result, it plays an important role while interpreting the Regulation itself. The report states that the notion of “disposition of property upon death” excludes inter vivos dispositions having immediate proprietary effect. When it comes to disposition of property upon death “it is upon the death of the person so disposing, and not in any respect at any earlier time, that the disposition (or transfer) takes place” (para. 41 of the explanatory report).

The opinion indicates also that Article 1(2)(g) of the Succession Regulation should be read together with recital 14 thereof, which explains that the law applicable to the succession “determines whether gifts or other forms of dispositions inter vivos giving rise to a right in rem prior to death should be restored or accounted for the purposes of determining the shares of the beneficiaries” (para. 36 of the opinion). This suggests that donations excluded from the scope of the Regulation are only those that might be classified within a broader term of “dispositions inter vivos giving rise to a right in rem prior to death”. A contrario, dispositions giving rise to a right in rem after the death are not covered by the exclusion provided for in Article 1(2)(g) of the Succession Regulation. The Court of Justice seems to share this view but does not justify it in such detailed manner as the opinion.

Given the above, the Court of Justice concluded that “a contract under which a person provides for the future transfer, on death, of ownership of immovable property belonging to him or her to other parties to the contract is an agreement as to succession” within the meaning of the Succession Regulation. As a result, the agreement at hand should be covered by the material scope of the Succession Regulation.

Choice of the Applicable Law to the Donation Mortis Causa

Knowing that, the second question that the Court of Justice had to answer was whether it is possible to choose the law applicable to the succession of an asset indicated in the donation mortis causa, as in the contract at hand the Austrian law was chosen as applicable.

It must be noted that, in accordance with the Succession Regulation, the law applicable to succession is the law of the last habitual residence of the deceased (Article 21(1)), subject to the operation of the escape clause (Article 21(2)) unless the deceased has chosen the law applicable in the disposition of property upon death in accordance with Article 22. The Regulation contains also transitional provisions, as according to Article 84 thereof its rules apply from 17 August 2015 (Article 84) but only to the succession of persons who died from that date onwards.

Pursuant to Article 83(2) of the Regulation, where the deceased had chosen the law applicable to his succession prior to 17 August 2015, that choice remains valid if it meets the conditions laid down in the Regulation itself or in the rules of private international law which were in force, at the time the choice was made, in the state of either the “habitual residence” or (one of) “nationality” of the deceased.  That is the expression of favor validitatis principle, which aims to prevent the choice of applicable law to succession made in the past from becoming invalid due to the change in law, namely, replacement of domestic international succession rules by the Succession Regulation.

The doubt before the Court of Justice was whether Article 83(2) of the Succession Regulation may apply to the choice of the applicable law (namely, Austrian law) contained in the donation mortis causa contract signed in 1975. The answer was negative. The Court of Justice held that Article 83(2) concerns only “the validity of the choice of law applicable to the succession as a whole”, whereas (it seems that) “the choice of Austrian law concerned only the agreement as to succession concluded by the deceased in the main proceedings in respect of one of his assets and not the succession as a whole, with the result that the condition for applying Article 83(2) of that regulation cannot be considered satisfied in such circumstances (para. 39)”.

This seems a reasonable conclusion, provided that the Succession Regulation is built on the unitary principle, meaning that one single law governs succession. This principle applies functionally, meaning that one single law governs succession “from the opening of the succession to the transfer of ownership of the assets forming part of the estate to the beneficiaries” (recital 42 of the Regulation) and territorially, meaning that one single law governs succession “irrespective of the nature of the assets and regardless of whether the assets are located in another Member State or in a third State” (recital 37).

Additionally, it might be added that the choice of applicable law with respect to agreements as to succession (Article 25) relates only to the question of their admissibility, substantive validity, and their binding effects between the parties, including the conditions for their dissolution. This should not be equated with the choice of law applicable to succession as a whole (which governs succession in general, for example, the question of liability for debts – Article 23(2)(g)).

Conclusion

To conclude, it was rightly confirmed in the UM judgment that, in accordance with the Succession Regulation, a donation mortis causa giving rise to a right in rem after the death of the donor constitutes an agreement as to succession within the meaning of this regulation. Additionally, in general, in a succession case there might be more than one disposition of property upon death, including agreements as to succession providing for donations mortis causa of particular assets, but there can only be one single law applicable to succession as a whole, which governs “all civil-law aspects of succession to the estate of a deceased person” with respect to all the assets of the deceased.