Agrégateur de flux

In Case C-70/23 Mesto Rimavská Sobota the CJEU held on 21 November on an important trigger for many an EU product- and import /export related environmental regulation. In the case at issue the context is the EU Timber Regulation 995/2010 also known as ‘EUTR’. The EUTR in essence aims to prevent illegally harvested timber from being lawfully marketed. [Of note is that the EUTR has been replaced by the EU Deforestation Regulation – EUDR 2023/1115. Entry into force of the EUDR was to be postponed by a year at the time of writing].

The core issue in the case was the concept of ‘operator’. It is the operator who needs to ensure there is an adequate due diligence system in place in the supply chain. Article 2(c) EUTR states that an ‘operator’ means

any natural or legal person that places timber or timber products on the market.

Article 2(b) of the Timber Regulation further explains that ‘placing on the market’ means

the supply by any means, irrespective of the selling technique used, of timber or timber products for the first time on the internal market for distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge.

In the case at issue a Slovak municipality had tendered access to its wood, including the right to harvest a specified amount of trees. Harvesting was to be carried out under the supervision of employees of the municipality, however they were not actually felling the trees. Was the municipality the ‘operator’? Or  was it the contractor?

The CJEU’s judgment is in essence one of statutory construction. It is settled case-law that to interpret a provision of EU law, one needs to consider not only its wording but also the context in which it occurs and the objectives pursued by the rules of which it is part.

At para 26 the Court points out that Article 2(c) of the EUTR defines, the concept of ‘operator’ as any natural or legal person that places timber or timber products on the market. Article 2(b) in turn as noted defines the notion of ‘placing on the market’ as covering ‘the supply by any means, irrespective of the selling technique used, of timber or timber products for the first time on the internal market for distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity, whether in return for payment or free of charge’.

At para 28 the Court holds that the term ‘supply’ in Article 2(b) “must, according to its usual meaning, be understood as referring to the transfer of ownership of a quantity of timber or timber products.” That in my opinion is a bit of an interpretative shortcut. Even in its ordinary meaning, ‘supply’ arguably is a broader category than ‘transfer of ownership’. The Court’s take is impacted by the fact that ‘standing trees’ are not included as ‘timber and timber‘ products’ in relevant Annex.

The Court continues some of that focus on ownership and its transfer, this time with emphasis on the first time such ownership is transferred, holding ‘ a natural or legal person must be regarded as being an ‘operator’, ‘placing on the market’ ‘timber and timber products’, within the meaning of Article 2(a) to (c) of Regulation No 995/2010, where, irrespective of the selling technique used, it transfers for the first time and for the purposes of distribution or use in the course of a commercial activity, the right of ownership in wood in the rough or fuel wood to a person who carries out transactions in the internal market.’ (para 31). When that transfer occurs is dependent upon the applicable law: if it already occurs viz the trees still standing, there is no transfer of ownership of timber or timber products and the due diligence requirements are imposed upon a party further down the chain.

The judgment illustrates the continuing need for the legislator to define core regulatory requirements with the specific intentions of the regulation in mind.

Geert.

 

This post was written by Prof. Dr. Giesela Rühl, LL.M. (Berkeley), Humboldt University of Berlin, and is also available via conflictoflaws.net.  As reported earlier on this blog, Germany has been discussing for years how the framework conditions for the settlement of (international) commercial disputes can be improved. Triggered by increasing competition from international commercial arbitration […]

This post was written by Prof. Dr. Giesela Rühl, LL.M. (Berkeley), Humboldt University of Berlin, and is also available via the EAPIL blog.

As reported earlier on this blog, Germany has been discussing for years how the framework conditions for the settlement of (international) commercial disputes can be improved. Triggered by increasing competition from international commercial arbitration as well as the creation of international commercial courts in other countries (as well as Brexit) these discussions have recently yielded a first success: Shortly before the German government coalition collapsed on November 6, the federal legislature adopted the Law on the Strengthening of Germany as a Place to Settle (Commercial) Disputes (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz of 7 October 2024)[1]. The Law will enter into force on 1 April 2025 and amend both the Courts Constitution Act (Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz – GVG) and the Code of Civil Procedure (Zivilprozessodnung – ZPO)[2] with the aim of improving the position of Germany’s courts vis-à-vis recognized litigation and arbitration venues – notably London, Amsterdam, Paris and Singapore. Specifically, the new Law brings three innovations.

English as the language of proceedings

The first innovation relates to the language of court proceedings: To attract international disputes to German courts, the new Law allows the German federal states (Bundesländer)[3] to establish “commercial chambers” at the level of the regional courts (Landgerichte) that will offer to conduct proceedings in English from beginning to end if the parties so wish (cf. § 184a GVG). Before these chambers parties will, therefore, be allowed to file their briefs and all their statements in English, the oral hearings will be held in English and witnesses will be examined in English. In addition, commercial chambers will communicate with the parties in English and write all orders, decisions and the final judgment in English. Compared to the status quo, which limits the use of English to the oral hearing (cf. § 185(2) GVG) and the presentation of English-language documents (cf. § 142(3) ZPO) this will be a huge step forward.

The new Law, however, does not stop here. In addition to allowing the establishment of (full) English language commercial chambers at the regional court level it requires that federal states ensure that appeals against English-language decisions coming from commercial chambers will also be heard (completely) in English in second instance at the Higher Regional Courts (Oberlandesgerichte) (cf. § 184a(1) No. 1 GVG). The new Law also allows the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) to conduct proceedings entirely in English (cf. § 184b(1) GVG). Unfortunately, however, the Federal Supreme Court is not mandated to hear cases in English (even if they started in English). Rather, it will be in the discretion of the Federal Supreme Court to decide on a case-by-case basis (and at the request of the parties) whether it will hold the proceedings in English – or switch to German (cf. § 184b GVG). The latter is, of course, unfortunate, as parties cannot be sure that a case that is filed in English (and heard in English at first and second instance) will also be heard in English by the Federal Supreme Court thus reducing incentives to commence proceedings in English in the first place. But be this as it may: it is to be welcomed that the German federal legislature, after long and heated debates, finally decided to open up the German civil justice system to English as the language of the proceedings.

Specialized “commercial courts” for high-volume commercial disputes

The second innovation that the new Law brings relates to the settlement of high-volume commercial cases (whether international or not). To prevent these cases from going to arbitration (or to get them back into the state court system) the new Law allows the German federal states to establish specialized senates at the Higher Regional Courts. Referred to as “commercial courts” these senates will be distinct from other senates in that they will be allowed to hear (certain) commercial cases in first instance if the parties so wish (cf. § 119b(1) GVG) thus deviating from the general rule that cases have to start either in the local courts (if the value in dispute is below € 5.000,00) or in the regional courts (if the value in dispute is € 5.000,00 or higher). In addition, commercial courts will conduct their proceedings in English (upon application of the parties) and in a more arbitration-style fashion. More specifically, they will hold a case management conference at the beginning of proceedings and prepare a verbatim record of the hearing upon application of the parties (cf. §§ 612, 613 ZPO). Commercial courts will, hence, be able to offer more specialized legal services as well as services that correspond to the needs and expectations of (international) commercial parties.

It is unfortunate, however, that the German legislature was afraid that the commercial courts would be flooded with (less complex) cases – and, therefore, decided to limit their jurisdiction to disputes with a value of more than € 500.000,00 (cf. § 119b(1) GVG). As a consequence, only parties with a high-volume case will have access to the commercial courts. This is problematic for several reasons: First, it is unclear whether a reference to the value of the dispute is actually able to distinguish complex from less complex cases. Second, any fixed threshold will create unfairness at the margin, as disputes with a value of slightly less than € 500.00,00 will not be allowed to go to the commercial courts. Third, requiring a minimum value can lead to uncertainty because the value of a dispute may not always be clear ex ante when the contract is concluded. Fourth, a fixed threshold may create the impression of a two-tier justice system, in which there are “luxury” courts for the rich and “ordinary” courts for the poor. And, finally, there is a risk that the commercial courts will not receive enough cases to build up expertise and thus reputation. Against this background, it would have been better to follow the example of France, Singapore, and London and to open commercial courts for all commercial cases regardless of the amount in dispute. At the very least, the legislature should have set the limit much lower. The Netherlands Commercial Court, for example, can be used for any disputes with a value higher than € 25,000.00.

Better protection of trade secrets

The third innovation, finally, concerns the protection of trade secrets. However, unlike the other innovations the relevant provisions are not limited to certain chambers or senates (to be established by the federal states on the basis of the new Law), but apply to all civil courts and all civil proceedings (cf. § 273a ZPO). They allow the parties to apply for protection of information that qualifies as a trade secret within the meaning of the German Act on the Protection of Trade Secrets (Gesetz zum Schutz von Geschäftsgeheimnissen – GeschGehG). If the court grants the application, all information classified as a trade secret must be kept confidential during and after the proceedings (cf. §§ 16 Abs. 2, 18 GeschGehG). In addition, the court may restrict access to confidential information at the request of a party and exclude the public from the oral hearing (§ 19 GeschGehG). The third innovation, thus, account for the parties’ legitimate interests in protecting their business secrets without unduly restricting the public nature of civil proceedings, which is one of the fundamental pillars of German civil justice. At the same time, it borrows an important feature from arbitration. However, since the new rules are concerned with the protection of trade secrets only, they do not guarantee the confidentiality of the proceedings as such. As a result, the parties cannot request that the fact that there is a court case at all be kept secret.

Success depends on the federal states

Overall, there is no doubt that the new Law is to be welcomed. Despite the criticism that can and must be levelled against some provisions, it will improve the framework for the resolution of high-volume (international) commercial disputes in German courts. However, there are two caveats:

The first caveat has its root in the Law itself. As it places the burden to establish commercial chambers and commercial courts on the federal states, the extent to which it will be possible for civil court proceedings to be conducted entirely in English and the extent to which there will be specialized senates for high-volume commercial disputes will depend on whether the federal states will exercise their powers. In addition, the practical success of the Law will also depend on whether the federal states will make the necessary investments that will allow commercial chambers and commercial courts to strive. For example, they will need to make sure that commercial chambers and commercial courts are staffed with qualified judges who have the necessary professional and linguistic qualifications and ideally also practical experience to settle high-volume (international) commercial disputes. In addition, they will have to ensure that judges have sufficient time to deal with complex (national and international) cases. And, finally, federal states will have to ensure that sufficiently large and technically well-equipped hearing rooms are available for the kind of high-volume disputes that they seek to attract. Should federal states not be willing to make these kinds of investments commercial chambers and commercial courts will most likely be of limited use.

The second caveat concerns the likely success of the new Law with regards to international disputes. In fact, even if the federal states implement the new Law in a perfect manner, i.e. even if they establish a sufficient number of commercial chambers and commercial courts and even if they make the investments described above, it seems unlikely that German courts will become sought-after venues for the settlement of international commercial disputes. This is because the German civil justice system has numerous disadvantages when compared with international commercial arbitration. In addition, the attractiveness of German courts suffers from the moderate reputation and poor accessibility of German substantive law. Both problems will not disappear with the implementation of the new Law.

Against this background, the new Law holds the greatest potential for national high-volume commercial disputes. However, it should not be forgotten that these kinds of disputes represent only a small fraction of the disputes that end up before German courts each year. In order to really strengthen Germany as a place to settle dispute, it would, therefore, be necessary to address the problems that these cases are facing. However, while the (now former) Federal Minister of Justice made promising proposals to this effect in recent months, the collapse of the German government coalition in early November makes is unlikely, that these proposals will be adopted any time soon. In the interest of the German civil justice system as a whole, it is, therefore, to be hoped that the proposals will be reintroduced after the general election in early 2025.

 

[1]     Gesetz zur Stärkung des Justizstandortes Deutschland durch Einführung von Commercial Courts und der Gerichtssprache Englisch in die Zivilgerichtsbarkeit (Justizstandort-Stärkungsgesetz) vom 7. Oktober 2024, Bundesgesetzblatt (Federal Law Gazette) 2024 I Nr. 302.

[2]        Note that both the translations of the GVG and the ZPO do not yet include the amendments introduced through the new Law discussed in this post.

[3]        The German civil justice system divides responsibilities between the federal state (Bund) and the 16 federal states (Bundesländer). While the federal state is responsible for adopting unified rules relating to the organization of courts as well as the law of civil procedure (Art. 74 No. 1 of the Basic Law), the federal states are responsible for administering (most) civil courts on a daily basis (Art. 30 of the Basic Law). It is, therefore, the federal states that organize and fund most civil courts, appoint judges, and manage the court infrastructure.

HSBC Holdings e.a. / Commission
Concurrence
Concurrence en matière de produits dérivés de taux d’intérêt libellés en euros : le Tribunal confirme la décision révisée de la Commission à l’encontre de HSBC

Nord Stream 2 / Parlement et Conseil
Énergie
Gazoduc Nord Stream 2 : le Tribunal rejette le recours de Nord Stream 2 contre la directive étendant les règles du marché intérieur du gaz naturel aux gazoducs en provenance de pays tiers

On 29 November 2024 in Dijon, from 9 AM to 5 PM, the Centre de Recherche sur le Droit International des Marchés et des Investissements Internationaux (CREDIMI) of the University of Burgundy, in partnership with the Centre Droit Éthique et Procédures (CDEP) of the University of Artois, is organizing a colloquium titled La spécialisation du […]

Introduction

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has allowed an appeal against a permanent anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunction in relation to a default judgment from Kentucky, which the plaintiff alleged had been obtained by fraud: Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] NZCA 609. The Court upheld the findings of fraud. It also did not rule out the possibility of an injunction being an appropriate remedy in the future. However, the Court concluded that an injunction could only be granted as a step of last resort, which required the plaintiff to pursue its right of appeal against the Kentucky judgment.

The background to the case is set out in a previous post on this blog (see also here). In summary, the case involved allegations of “a massive worldwide fraud” perpetrated by the defendants — a New Zealand company (Wikeley Family Trustee Ltd), an Australian resident with a long business history in New Zealand (Mr Kenneth Wikeley), and a New Zealand citizen (Mr Eric Watson) — against the plaintiff, Kea Investments Ltd (Kea), a British Virgin Islands company owned by a New Zealand businessman. Kea alleged that the US default judgment obtained by WFTL was based on fabricated claims intended to defraud Kea. Kea claimed tortious conspiracy and sought a world-wide anti-enforcement injunction, which was granted by the High Court, first on an interim and then on a permanent basis. Wikeley, the sole director and shareholder of WFTL, appealed to the Court of Appeal.

The Court of Appeal allowed the appeal against the grant of the injunction. At the same time, it upheld the High Court’s declarations that the Kentucky default judgment was obtained by fraud and that it was not entitled to recognition or enforcement in New Zealand. It also upheld the High Court’s damages award (for legal costs incurred in overseas proceedings in defence of the tortious conspiracy).

 

The judgment

There are two points from the judgment that I want to focus on here: the Court’s emphasis on comity, and the relevance of fraud as a basis for an anti-enforcement injunction.

Comity

An entire section of the judgment is dedicated to the concept of comity, which the Court relied on as a guiding principle. The Court said that it was necessary “to confront, head on, the appropriateness, in comity terms, of an order which … in substance, is addressed to United States courts and which could, at least in theory, provoke countermeasures, with the result that no legal system will be able to administer justice” (at [167]). Drawing on work by Professor Andrew Dickinson, the Court confirmed that comity was not simply “a matter of judicial collegiality” (at [164]). In the international system, comity was like “the mortar which cements together a brick house” (citing Judge Wilkey in Laker Airways Ltd v Sabena Belgian World Airlines 731 F 2d 909 (DC Cir 1984) at 937).

Anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions had the effect of interfering with comity, because they interfered with “the interests of a foreign legal system in administering justice within its own territory” (at [164]). Drawing again on Dickinson’s work, the Court said that anti-suit/enforcement injunctions “push[ed] at the boundaries of … the global system of justice” (at [166]). The Court disagreed (at [189]) with the High Court’s observation that the injunction “may even be seen as consistent with the requirements of comity”, insofar as the injunction had the effect of restraining a New Zealand company from abusing the process of the Kentucky court to perpetuate a fraud. The United States courts were “unlikely to look for or need the protection of New Zealand courts” and were “well capable of identifying fraud and ensuring no reward flows from it” (at [189]).

Extreme caution was necessary, therefore, before exercising the power to grant an anti-suit/enforcement injunction (at [176]). Comity required “the court to recognise that, in deciding questions of weight to be attached to different factors, different judges operating under different legal systems with different legal policies may legitimately arrive at different answers” (at [177]). Anti-enforcement injunctions were especially rare and were “characterised by particularly careful assessments of whether the relief sought is truly necessary and consistent with comity” (at [180]).

Because of these concerns, an anti-enforcement injunction should be “a measure of last resort” (referring again to Dickinson, at [185]). This meant that the Court in this case had to “at least await the outcome of the appeal process [in Kentucky] before considering whether to issue an anti-suit or anti-enforcement judgment” (at [186]).

 Fraud as a distinct category?

In the anti-enforcement context, some scholars have treated fraud as a distinct category of case that may justify the grant of an injunction: see, most recently, Hannah L Buxbaum and Ralf Michaels “Anti-enforcement injunctions” [2024] 56 NYU Journal of International Law and Politics 101 at 110-111, citing Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144 (CA) in support. The Queensland Supreme Court also relied on Ellerman Lines when granting relief in aid of the New Zealand interim orders (Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley (No 2) [2023] QSC 215 at [178]–[188], with the Queensland Court of Appeal upholding the reasoning in Wikeley v Kea Investments Ltd [2024] QSC 201).

The Court of Appeal’s reasoning casts doubt on the existence of fraud as a distinct category. In [176], the Court adopted Dickinson’s “convenient collection” of the following four categories that may justify anti-suit relief (see fn 157): that “the foreign court has acted or is likely to act in excess of its jurisdiction under international law, in violation of the requirements of natural justice, otherwise in a manner manifestly incompatible with New Zealand’s fundamental policies, or that its proceedings are likely significantly and irreversibly to interfere with the administration of justice in New Zealand”.

On the facts of the present  case, the Court thought that the category of natural justice was most relevant. The Court considered it “almost inevitable” that, had the New Zealand court been in the Kentucky court’s position, it would have set aside the default judgment, on the basis that the proceeding had not been drawn to Kea’s attention and sufficiently substantial grounds of defence had been made out (at [182]). The Court said that, in these circumstances, “[a]t least if the judgment were final, with all appeal rights exhausted and against a New Zealand entity … a New Zealand court might well consider that, despite its respect for the United States courts, a sufficiently fundamental policy issue was engaged – one ultimately based in principles of natural justice and fair hearing rights – that an anti-suit or anti-enforcement order should issue” (at [183], emphasis added).

What is more, the Court distinguished the case from Ellerman Lines Ltd v Read [1928] 2 KB 144 (CA) on the basis “there was no contractual jurisdiction clause that the New Zealand Court was seeking to enforce” (at [187]). It expressed “caution” about the proposition that the pursuit of the Kentucky proceedings should be injuncted because the proceeding was fraudulent and therefore “inherently unconscionable”, referring to criticism by Dickinson that the language of unconscionability is “a vestige of an earlier monotheistic society [which] no longer performs any useful role and obscures the real reasons for granting injunctions” (at [190]). A conclusion by the New Zealand court that the Kentucky proceeding was vexatious or oppressive had “the capacity to look patronising from the perspective of the United States – something which in comity terms should be avoided” (at [191]). The issue of fraud could be addressed by the United States court, “with all of the advanced legislative and common law apparatus available to it to do justice between the parties” (at [191]).

On the other hand, the Court clarified that it was not suggesting that “it would never be appropriate for a New Zealand court to issue a worldwide anti-enforcement order” (at [188], emphasis in original).

 

Comments

The Court’s detailed engagement with comity is heartening for anyone who is concerned about the destabilising effects of anti-suit/enforcement injunctions on the international system. Yet the reasoning is also underpinned by tension.

First, the Court seemed to eschew fraud as a distinct basis for the award of an anti-enforcement injunction, while accepting the appropriateness of determining whether the foreign proceeding was fraudulent (and granting declaratory relief to that effect). If the Court is willing to entertain a claim that the pursuit of a foreign proceeding forms part of a tortious conspiracy, why should this not provide a potential basis for an injunction (as opposed to, say, natural justice)?

This potential contradiction had flow-on effects for the scope of the Court’s orders, because the Court refused to discharge the appointment of interim liquidators of WFTL. Interim liquidators had been appointed after attempts by the defendant to assign the benefit of the Kentucky default judgment from WFTL to a United States entity, to “insulate” WFTL from “any New Zealand judgment” (at [43]). The Court considered that the appointment of interim liquidators was “for valid domestic reasons by ensuring assets available to satisfy any New Zealand judgment remained under the control of New Zealand parties” and that it was “unaffected by discharge of the anti-suit and anti-enforcement injunctions” (at [196], [211](e)). The Court acknowledged that the interim liquidators could face pressure to enforce the Kentucky default judgment “in order to meet the New Zealand judgment debt and costs awards against WFTL – this despite the judgments of the High Court and this Court finding claims under the Coal Agreement to be fraudulent and made pursuant to conspiracy” (at [201]). The Court did not “at this stage express any view about how the principles of international comity might respond to that particular scenario” (at [201]). Why is it a “valid domestic reason” to protect the satisfaction of a New Zealand judgment for damages that were incurred in defending the foreign fraudulent proceeding, but it is not a “valid domestic reason” to prevent enforcement of a judgment that is the result of such a fraudulent proceeding?

Second, while the injunction had the potential to interfere with comity, it was also, arguably, a tool for dialogue. The Court of Appeal was clear that the injunction could not be understood as “an act of comity”; and it thought it was unlikely that the Kentucky court would want or would need the help of the New Zealand Court. At the same time, it would be strange if the Kentucky court did not take account of the finding of fraud, or the concerns about natural justice. In this way, the Court of Appeal’s decision to treat the injunction as a last resort, and to require the plaintiff to pursue an appeal in Kentucky, may be seen as part of an unfolding dialogue between the courts that would not have happened – and would not have been possible – without the potential of anti-enforcement relief. At the very least, the decision will serve as a pointer to the Kentucky court that the default judgment has cross-border implications and gives rise to a risk of conflicting orders.

Third, the Court seemed to characterise the plaintiff’s decision to bring proceedings in New Zealand as a strategic move, noting that “WFTL’s New Zealand registration and its status as a trustee of a New Zealand trust provided a jurisdictional leg up with which to challenge enforcement [of the Kentucky default judgment]” (at [194]). This characterisation sits uncomfortably with the Court’s acceptance that the Kentucky proceeding – including the defendants’ choice of Kentucky as a forum – was itself based on fraudulent fabrications. It is one thing to conclude that the plaintiffs should have persevered in Kentucky by pursuing their appeal there, on the basis that a foreign court must be left to control its own proceedings. It is another to say that the plaintiff, by turning to the New Zealand court for help, was using WFTL’s registration in New Zealand as a “jurisdictional leg up” (cf also the Court’s discussion in [183] that there would be a potential case for an anti-enforcement injunction if the default judgment was in breach of a New Zealand entity’s rights to natural justice – that is, if the plaintiff was a New Zealand entity). Where a New Zealand entity is used as a vehicle for fraud, the New Zealand court may have a legitimate interest – or even a responsibility – to stop the fraud, albeit that an injunction is a measure of last resort.

Fourth, the Court of Appeal distinguished Ellerman Lines on the basis that the latter case involved an English jurisdiction clause. This reasoning suggests that anti-suit/enforcement relief may be an appropriate response to foreign proceedings brought in breach of a New Zealand jurisdiction clause, but that it may not be an appropriate response to foreign fraudulent proceedings between strangers. Why is it worse to suffer a breach of a jurisdiction clause, than to be dragged into a random foreign court on the basis of a fraudulent claim (including a forged jurisdiction clause in favour of the foreign court)? The Court did not address this question. The Court also did not address – but noted, in a different part of the judgment – the question whether a breach of a jurisdiction clause should justify injunctive relief as a matter of course (see footnote 158). Clearly, the Court did not think that this question was relevant to its decision to distinguish Ellerman Lines, but a more detailed discussion would have been helpful, to ensure the coherent development of the court’s power to grant anti-suit/enforcement injunctions.

Les assignations à résidence prises depuis le 15 juillet 2024 sur le fondement de l’article L. 751-2 du code de l’entrée et du séjour des étrangers et du droit d’asile (CESEDA) doivent-elles être jugées selon la procédure prévue au titre II du livre IX du CESEDA ?

en lire plus

On 2 December 2024, at 6 pm CET, a free webinar will take place in preparation of the 2025 edition of the EAPIL Winter School on Multistate Torts, which will be held on-site in Como between 10 and 15 February 2025 (see here for the full program and further details).

The webinar will give a glimpse of what the Winter School will be about and will briefly present some of its hot topics, such as online defamation, climate change litigation, artificial intelligence and crypto values.

The speakers are some of those who will be lecturing at the Winter School, namely Javier Carrascosa González (University of Murcia), Anatol Dutta (Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich), Thomas Kadner Graziano (University of Geneva), Tobias Lutzi (University of Augsburg), Satu Heikkilä (Administrative Law Judge), Silvia Marino (University of Insubria), Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University, attorney at law), Geert van Calster (KU Leuven) and Anna Wysocka-Bar (Jagiellonian University).

The webinar will also offer an opportunity to provide information about the EAPIL Winter School.

Join the free seminar to discover what awaits you during the Winter School week, and…if you want to know more, enrol and come to Como in February!

Those interested in attending the webinar shall write at eapilws@gmail.com in order to receive the Teams link.

More information on the Winter School is found here. To enrol in the Winter School, please fill in this form.

The latest issue of the RabelsZ (Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht) has been published. The following abstracts have been kindly provided to us by the editor of the journal. Holger Fleischer and Heike Schweitzer, Ernst-Joachim Mestmäcker † 22 April 2024 (Open Access) Klaus Ulrich Schmolke, Das Prinzip der beschränkten Gesellschafterhaftung – Ein Streifzug […]

The University of Luxembourg will host an event to present a newly released book, European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, published by Bruylant/Larcier. Co-edited by Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), the book offers a detailed analysis of Regulation […]

As foreign law assumes an increasingly significant role in judicial practice, the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law is pleased to announce a Workshop on Providing Information on Foreign Law to Courts, which will take place in Lausanne on November 26.

Renowned experts, both individuals and institutions, will delve into practical challenges and share insights, comparing practices from various countries, including England, France, Germany, Poland, Switzerland and USA.

Presentations will be conducted in English, in German or in French.

For further information, please contact: marie-laure.lauria@isdc-dfjp.unil.ch

The program for the workshop is available below or can be accessed here.

 

INDIVIDUAL EXPERTS

9.30-11.00

Chair: Dr. Lukas Heckendorn, Deputy Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

• Experiences in Poland and Germany compared

Prof. Arkadiusz Wudarski, European University Viadrina Frankfurt

• A Common Law Experience

Prof. Franz Werro, University of Fribourg and Georgetown University

• French Experiences

Prof. Gustavo Cerqueira, Université Côte d’Azur

Discussion

11.00-11.30: Coffee break

 

INSTITUTIONAL EXPERTS

11.30-12.30

Chair: Dr. Ilaria Pretelli, Legal Adviser, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

• The German Approach: The Max Planck Guidelines

Jan Peter Schmidt, Priv.-Doz., Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

• The Swiss Approach: experience of SICL

Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler, Deputy Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

Discussion

12.30-13-30 : Lunch

BARCAMP

13.30-16.00

Moderator: Prof. Nadjma Yassari, Director, Swiss Institute of Comparative Law

A Barcamp session is an open and interactive format that encourages collaboration and idea-sharing. Since all participants join every session, the process is highly collaborative, ensuring focused, inclusive, and enriching discussions for everyone involved.

• Proposing Topics: Any participant can suggest a topic, which will be guided by a moderator.
• Moderated Discussions: A designated moderator ensures the session stays focused and that everyone has the chance to contribute.
• Flexible Structure: Sessions can take the form of a short presentation, group discussion, or collaborative brainstorming.
• Open Exchange: Everyone is encouraged to actively contribute their ideas, perspectives, and questions.
• Shared Learning: The goal is to exchange knowledge, explore new approaches, and learn from each other.

16.00: closure of event

On 7 November 2024 the Court of Justice handed down its judgement in Hantoch case (C‑291/23) in which it interpreted jurisdictional rules of Article 10 of the Succession Regulation. The preliminary question originated from Germany, from Landgericht Düsseldorf. Background of the Case and the Doubt of the Referring Court The deceased lived and worked for […]

Issue 4 of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2024 was just published. It contains the following articles, case notes, and book review:

Katherine Reece-Thomas,  “State Immunity and Sunken Treasure: Finders will not Always be Keepers”

Anthony Kennedy, “Unanswered Questions”

Michael F Sturley†, “The Centenary of the Hague Rules: Celebrating a Century of International Conventions Overmining the Carriage of Goods by Sea”

2024 marks the centenary of the Hague Rules, which still play a central role in allocating the risk of cargo loss or damage. To celebrate that milestone, it is valuable to review the history, beginning with the pre-existing risk allocation. When maritime nations applied widely accepted principles differently, efforts began in the late nineteenth century to achieve uniformity by international agreement. Those efforts failed until domestic legislation exacerbated the problem and created greater pressure for a solution. Even after agreement was reached in 1924, however, another fourteen years passed before the Convention was widely in force. Since then, international uniformity has been challenged in multiple ways, and the story continues to this day.

 

Marcus Teo, “Foreign Law as Fact”

In English law, “foreign law”, as applied under choice-of-law rules, is a question of fact. This “fact doctrine”, however, faces scepticism for three reasons: it remains unclear whether foreign law is truly treated as a question of fact, why it is so treated, and what the precise fact-in-issue is. This article addresses these concerns. It demonstrates that, today, foreign law is treated like any other question of fact. It then argues that foreign law should be classified as a question of fact, and should refer to foreign legal rulings, because this facilitates the accurate prediction of foreign decisions.

 

Adrian Briggs, “Book Review – Dicey+100. Albert Venn Dicey: A Centennial Commemoration”

 

 

This post was written by Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld. On 28 November 2024, the University of Vienna, in cooperation with the Association Henri Capitant (German and Belgian branches) and the Interdisciplinary Association of Comparative and Private International Law (IACPIL), will host a conference on The Reform of Belgian Property Law and Law of Obligations. The event will […]

The University of Luxembourg is proud to host a special event to present the newly released book, European Account Preservation Order – A Multi-jurisdictional Guide with Commentary, published by Bruylant/Larcier.

Co-edited by leading experts Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia), Dr. Heikki A. Huhtamäki (Huhtamäki Brothers Attorneys Ltd), and Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), this comprehensive guide offers a detailed analysis of Regulation (EU) No 655/2014, with contributions from 26 Member States.

The first panel will explore practical challenges in the use of EAPO in Luxembourg and France, moderated by Dr. Elena Alina On?anu (University of Tilburg) and featuring insights from Dr. Laurent Heisten (Moyse & Associates Law Firm, Luxembourg), Alexandra Thépaut (Étude Calvo & Associés, Luxembourg) and Lionel Decotte (SAS Huissiers Réunis, France). The second panel will examine future developments and reforms, moderated by Dr. Nicholas Mouttotos (University of Bremen), with contributions from Prof. Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg) Dr. Carlos Santaló Goris (University of Luxembourg) and Dr. Nicolas Kyriakides (University of Nicosia).

The event will take place on December 3rd, 2024 at Room A401, University of Luxembourg – Weicker Building, from 11:00 to 13:15 CET.

See more details and registration.

On Tuesday, December 3, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 2:45 p.m. – 4:15 p.m. (CET). Professor Stéphanie Francq (UCLouvain) will speak, in English, about the topic

“Overriding Mandatory Rules in Family Matters and Personal Status, Are Belgians the Only Ones?”

 

Are we really witnessing the occurrence of overriding mandatory rules in family matters and personal status? A new phenomenon seems indeed to surface in this area with examples of substantive rules or values, announced by the lawmaker, together with a clear intention to apply in identified international situations. Belgian law offers a series of examples. But are Belgian the only ones using this method? German law has also offered a better known and rather unfortunate illustration with the Act to prevent child marriage. These rules, their upsides and downsides, deserve close consideration. First and obviously for technical reasons: are we indeed facing overriding mandatory rules, similar to those concerning business transactions? Or is this some new form of public policy exception? Are these rules carefully designed legal objects or rather clumsy attempts to secure the application of the lex fori? Beyond the technicalities, the presentation will tend to investigate potential reasons behind this new phenomenon.

It turns out that these rules might have something to tell us about the current state of conflict of laws, its politics and its theories, and its need to look beyond its own borders.

 

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

This post is authored by Antonio Leandro, Professor of Public and Private International Law at the University of Bari. On 14 November 2024, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the Oilchart case (C-394/22 Oilchart International NV v O.W. Bunker (Netherlands) BV, ING Bank NV), which deals with the ‘insolvency exception’ provided in Article […]

On 3 December 2024, at 6 pm UK time, Geert Van Calster (KU Leuven) will give a talk on Muscles from Brussels at the Faculty of Laws, University College London. The event will be delivered in a hybrid format and the readers of the blog are welcome to join either in person or on line. […]

In Jaffe & Anor Greybull Capital LLP & Ors [2024] EWHC 2534 (Comm) one of the issues was the applicable law for misrepresentation about the source of funds being injected into a company. Cockerill J, applying Article 4 Rome II and referring to earlier judgments all reviewed on the blog, in the end [300] holds for German law:

In terms of direct damage, damage occurred when those misrepresentations took effect in the minds of those attending the meeting in Germany and were subsequently relied upon. The alleged key decisions were said to have been taken at the November meeting of Wirecard’s Management Board; and this seems to have taken place in Germany. The direct links to Germany are simply much stronger than any links to this jurisdiction.

This echoes Abu Dhabi Commercial Bank v Shetty’s ‘in the case of a misrepresentation or fraud, the locus damni is held to be the place where that misrepresentation is acted upon’ (not a direct quote, rather my summary at the time). I believe this is the right conclusion. It is a stronger justification than [299]’s inclusion of the place where the loss is ultimately held, for instance:

Overall – and despite the clear and careful arguments advanced for the Claimants, I conclude that the preferable analysis is that the applicable law is German Law. There are many immediate factors linking the case to Germany both in terms of direction, causation and ultimate feeling of the loss. By contrast Wirecard is forced to rely on the effects of Side Letter 7. But Side Letter 7 did not immediately cause Wirecard damage and would not inevitably do so. It took a further contingency (administration) and the application of the relevant rules to manifest the chargebacks. The links to England are too derivative (described by the Claimants in closing as manifesting at “the fourth and fifth stages” of the analysis) and too poorly evidenced.

Geert.

https://x.com/GAVClaw/status/1844671980462575965