Agrégateur de flux

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) juge, à la majorité, qu’il n’y a pas eu violation du droit à la vie mais considère en revanche à l’unanimité que le requérant a subi un traitement inhumain et dégradant.

en lire plus

Les Etats membres de l’UE ne peuvent créer de dérogations supplémentaires à celles prévues par le droit de l’Union concernant le droit à l’assistance d’un avocat pour la personne sous le coup d’un mandat d’arrêt européen.

en lire plus

Thanks to the entering into force of the Dutch Collective Redress of Mass Damages Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA) on 1 January 2020, there has been an increase in prospective litigation against Volkswagen in the Netherlands and other countries in Europe involving the Volkswagen emissions scandal (also known as Dieselgate). We have previously reported on this law here and also on ongoing litigation against Volkswagen here (CJEU) and here (UK).

One of the institutes / organisations taking advantage of this opportunity is the Diesel Emissions Justice Foundation (DEJF), which was founded in the Netherlands, and which is seeking to be the exclusive representative in a collective redress action against Volkswagen. The DEJF is currently acting in the Netherlands, Belgium and France and has recently extended its activities to the rest of Europe provided that certain conditions are fulfilled (e.g. customers have not yet been compensated – one cannot be compensated twice and has to choose one representative – see more information here).

As indicated on its website, on 13 Mar 2020, DEJF summoned Volkswagen et al. to appear before Amsterdam District Court under new WAMCA proceedings. DEJF requested to be appointed as the Exclusive Representative Organisation (“Lead Plaintiff”). A summary in English is available here and the full text in Dutch is available here. See a summary of the progress here.

Undoubtedly, the ongoing litigation in other parts of the world and its final outcome will have an impact on this action. We will keep you informed.

Edoardo Rossi has published (in Italian) a book on the Sharing Economic in EU Private International Law (“” (“Sharing Economy in EU Private International Law”). The author has kindly provided us with an abstract:

In the current economic and social context new and controversial sharing practices, offering anyone the opportunity to search for or make available goods or services on the market regardless of the professional or amateur nature of the persons involved, have emerged. These practices, very heterogeneous and concerning the most different areas of daily life, such as mobility, housing, business activities, communications, work, culture, communication, education and finance, have been linked  to the notion of “sharing economy”, which brings them together by virtue of temporary access to goods or services, facilitated by the large-scale intervention of digital platforms, through which requests and offers are coordinated online in order to share goods or services.

The legitimacy of schemes linked to these new economic models has been challenged in a number of aspects, including low quality of services, safety of consumers, authorisation and licensing, taxes and compliance with competition rules. The inadequacy of the existing rules to deal with the provision of services through the sharing economy models has consequently emerged.

In spite of these critical profiles, the legal relations established through sharing economy platforms are constantly increasing around the world, implying the emergence of elements of transnationality, from which derives the recourse to the rules of private international law, in order to determine the applicable law and the judge competent to rule on any disputes.

The monograph thus attempts to analyse some of the most important private international law issues, such as the inadequacy of the party autonomy in regulating the phenomenon, especially with reference to the general terms and conditions of contract unilaterally drawn up by platform operators, which state that the latter is totally unrelated to the legal relations between users, often in conflict with the minimum level of consumer protection guaranteed by EU law and by the national legislations. Critical profiles have also been identified in the online conclusion of contracts that bind the parties involved in sharing economy legal relations, in ascertaining the effectiveness of consent on the choice of forum and choice of law clauses, in cases of potential related actions and in the location of the “domicile” of the platform operators.

For further information see here.

The summary is available here.

On 6 April 2020, the High Court of England and Wales handed down its judgment in the VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation. Besides many points of interest for owners of VW cars, it contains a new and rather unexpected development of EU private international law. In effect, the judgment significantly increases the role of administrative rulings in civil cross-border cases.

Background

The German Federal Motor Vehicle Authority (Kraftfahrzeugbundesamt) had written letters in 2015 regarding “defeat software”, by which VW vehicles recognised when they were being tested for compliance with emissions standards and consequently lowered performance. The letters were addressed to VW and demanded the removal of the software.

Although these administrative measures have prima facie no connection to the private law dispute pending before the High Court, Waksman J considered that he was bound by them (margin Nos 303-418). His main argument was by reference to the Framework Directive, which harmonises car type-approval in the EU (margin No 379). The German Federal Motor Vehicle Authority is the competent authority under the Directive for VW.

Binding Nature of Administrative Fact-Findings in Civil Proceedings

A critical point is that the letters did not contain any approval, but merely demanded the removal of certain software. Moreover, any determination that the software was illegal would be a matter of fact, and would not affect any order itself. It remains therefore questionable whether a court would be bound by this statement. Indeed, even German courts continue to disagree as to the statements’ effect in civil litigation.

Waksman J nevertheless thought to be bound by the letters for the following reasons (margin No 377):

No other approval authority [than the German authority] could make such an order [to remove the defeat software]. It would be very odd if Member States other than that in which the measures were ordered were not bound, so that authorities in those other Member States were left to decide what to do about it. This negates the objective of total harmonisation set out in Article 1 of the Framework Directive. It would enable a manufacturer in private proceedings in another Member State to argue that it was not in fact bound to take the measures ordered by the relevant approval authority because that authority got it wrong. But the manufacturer could only be prevented from making that argument if the order of the relevant approval authority was in fact binding throughout the EU.

Applicable Law to Binding Nature

In Waksman J’s view, the question regarding which orders are binding fell to be determined under local law which, in the case before him, was German law (margin No 380). As such, the orders were to be final and subject to appeal (id.). Their challenge would also be governed by German law according to the “local remedies rule” (margin No 383).

Duty of Sincere Cooperation

To buttress his position, Waksman J pointed to the duty of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) of the Treaty on European Union (margin no 384). This would oblige the UK to follow this principle and grant mutual recognition to decisions under the harmonised approval regime until the end of the transition period, which is set to expire on 31 December 2020 (margin no 386). In his view, the duty of sincere cooperation implies a “principle of deference”, which would inhibit courts from second-guess the findings of another Member State’s authorities (margin nos 387-388). If it were open to courts to challenge the statements of the competent authority, this would run contrary the principle of full effectiveness (effet utile) of EU law (margin No 389).

Competition Law Analogy

Waksman J further drew an analogy with EU competition law (margin Nos 397-409), under which regulatory decisions by the Commission are binding on courts in civil proceedings (see Art 16(1) Regulation 1/2003). The fact that the letters in question were issued by a national authority and not by the Commission did not matter, because the German authority would have exclusive jurisdiction under the harmonised Framework (margin No 397).

Conflict-of-Laws Principles

Finally, Waksman J pointed out that, even if his analysis of EU law were incorrect, he would still be bound by the German authority’s findings under conflict-of-laws principles. The reason he gave for this view is extremely terse (margin No 419):

… even if the KBA decision did not bind directly as a matter of EU law, then, either as a matter of EU conflicts principles, or as a matter of English law, the question of its binding effect here must be decided by reference to German law being the local law of the KBA.

Assessment

The judgment is a bold and audacious leap forward. The CJEU has so far ruled that courts must take administrative decisions from other Member States into account (see CJEU, Land Oberösterreich v Čez). Furthermore, the Court has decided that courts cannot ignore legal situations created in other Member States  (see CJEU, Garcia Avello). But it has not considered fact-findings in administrative decisions to be binding in cross-border civil litigation. The position under competition law is different, as there is no provision comparable to Article 16(1) of Regulation 1/2003 in the Framework Directive for car type approvals.

There are strong reasons to give administrative rulings a more prominent role in civil law proceedings (see Lehmann, Regulation, Global Governance and Private International Law: Squaring the Triangle). The judgment goes very far in recognising administrative fact-findings as conclusive for private disputes. This raises a number of questions, Which findings are binding – only those that are relevant for the order, or also others? What if the authority had found that VW had not installed “defeat” software; would that also be binding on a foreign court? What happens if the administrative decision is withdrawn or annulled in court?

Irrespective of these doubts, one must welcome the High Court’s decision. If it were followed across the EU, contradictory rulings on civil liability for the violation of regulatory law could largely be avoided. In this sense, the judgment could help deeper harmonisation in the Single Market. It forcefully demonstrates that British courts still can make a signification contribution to European law despite Brexit.

— Many thanks to Marion Ho-Dac and Amy Held for their contributions to this post.

Hier Édouard Philippe a présenté la stratégie gouvernementale de déconfinement. Un discours attendu. Au final, l’exercice c’est transformé en véritable question de confiance pour le Premier Ministre. Récit d’une séance atypique.

en lire plus

Advocate-General Szpunar in his Opinion in C-73/19 Belgische Staat v Movic BV et al refers in footnote to the comment made by Yours Truly (much humbled) on p.38 of the Handbook, that the seminal Eurocontrol and Steenbergen judgments on the concept of ‘civil and commercial’ in the Brussels regime, each posit dual criteria for the concept but only ever have one of their two legs applied. The Opinion in general testifies to the complex picture that emerges in case-law on the issue.

The issue is a knock-out point under Brussels Ia and the majority of EU private international law instruments. If the case is not civil and commercial, European PIL does not apply and residual national law takes over. Despite or perhaps because of this core relevance, the debate on the concept is far from settled. I reported on it as recently as a few weeks back (Øe AG in C-189/19 Supreme Site; and a little before that C-421/18 Dinant Bar v maître JN,) and I expressed a need for serious chewing over following different strands of focus among the CJEU’s chambers (my post on C-579/17 Buak).

The case at issue concerns enforcement of Belgium’s unfair trading act, not as in C‑167/00 Henkel by a consumer group but rather by the public authorities of the Member State.

Movic BV of The Netherlands and the others defendants practices ticket touting: resale of tickets for leisure events. Belgium in recent years has been cracking down on the phenomenon and in conflict terms, has expressed an eagerness to qualify big chunks of e-commerce laws as lois de police. One assumes this explains the reluctance of the defendants to be hauled in front of a Belgian judge.

At 12: what the Belgian authorities are seeking, is

first, findings of infringement in respect of conduct constituting, inter alia, unfair commercial practices, secondly, an order for the cessation of such infringement, thirdly, an order for publicity measures to be taken at the expense of the defendants; fourthly, the imposition of a penalty payment in a fixed sum, due in respect of each and every infringement which may be found to have taken place after service of the judgment, and fifthly, permission for the fact of such infringement to be certified simply by means of a report drawn up by a sworn official of one of the authorities in question.

At 16: arguments against the issue being of a civil and commercial nature, are

first, unlike any other person, the Belgian authorities are not required to demonstrate that they have an interest of their own in bringing proceedings of the kind illustrated by the main proceedings, secondly, their powers of investigation are not available to legal persons governed by private law, and thirdly, they also have enforcement powers which are not available to such persons.

As for the issue of lack of requirement of showing interest:

The first authority signalled is C‑551/15 Pula Parking: acting in the public interest does not equate acting in the exercise of State authority. Per the same case and per Fahnenbrock, and Kuhn, neither, the AG points out, does origin of authority in Statute, equate acta iure imperii. The fact that a power was introduced by a law is not, in itself, decisive in order to conclude that the State acted in the exercise of State authority (at 32). Neither does it follow from C-271/00 Baten that that the mere fact of exercising a power which the legislature has specifically conferred on a public authority automatically involves the exercise of public powers (at 34).

The AG then more specifically discusses the issue of lack of requirement to show interest to establish standing. Here there are plenty of similarities with the consumer organisations at issue in Henkel (37 ff). The exemption does not mean that the entity enjoys a prerogative under which it has powers altering the civil or commercial nature of its legal relationship with the private law entities, or the subject matter of the proceedings in which a cessation action is brought.  Similarly, it has no such powers as regards the procedural framework within which the proceedings arising out of those relationships are heard, which is identical whatever the status of the parties to the proceedings may be.

Further, with respect to the powers of investigation:  here the AG reads C‑49/12 Sunico as meaning that to exclude proceedings from the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’, (at 53)

it is not sufficient to identify national provisions which, in abstracto, authorise a public authority to gather evidence through the use of its public powers and to use such evidence in legal proceedings. Equally, it is not sufficient to find that that evidence has in fact been used in the proceedings. In order to exclude the proceedings from the scope of that expression, it must also be determined, in concreto, whether, by virtue of having used that evidence, the public authority is not in the same position as a person governed by private law in analogous proceedings.

(In the case at issue there are no such indications). This reading of Sunico makes the exemption exercise very much a factual one – which is not in itself unusual in the context of the case-law on ‘civil and commercial’. One hopes the Court itself will give clear guidance on how Sunico must be read.

The AG also zooms in on the request for penalty payments. Here, the core reference is C‑406/09 Realchemie. At 72 (after having analysed the issue): a procedure in which such payment is sought, falls within the scope of ‘civil and commercial matters’ where,

‘first, the purpose of the penalty payment is to ensure the effectiveness of the judicial decision given in the proceedings, which fall within the scope of that expression, and secondly, the penalty payment is a normal measure of civil procedure which is also available to private individuals, or which is imposed without exercising special powers that go beyond those arising from the rules of general law applicable to relationships between private individuals.’

(With both these boxes ticked in casu). This I believe is most sound.

Within the same context, the last argument refers to the need or not to instruct a bailiff to certify the existence (and frequency) of continued infringement: the relevant Belgian authorities can suffice with an oath by a civil servant. This is in fact not a point signalled by the referring court however the Belgian Government at hearing seemingly sought insurance cover as it were, effectively seeking sanction of its use of a civil servant statement in lieu of what ordinary parties would have to do, which is to instruct a bailiff. This, the AG suggest (at 75), does amount to exercise of public authority, but only then for that part of the claim (the penalty payment( against the Dutch defendants): weapons which an ordinary person could not avail themselves of (I would refer to C-271/00 Steenbergen here).

 

All in all the case illustrates the relatively narrow room for abstract pondering of the issue of ‘civil and commercial’. The Opinion is highly factual, and admirably on point viz the extensive CJEU authority. The need for highly factual considerations sits uneasily with the Regulation’s expressed DNA of predictability. However this squares with the CJEU case-law on same. And it bodes interestingly when we will start applying the corresponding Hague Judgments Convention provisions…

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Heading 2, Heading 2.2.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

A. Stein: The 2019 Hague Judgments Convention – All’s Well that Ends Well?

The Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, which was concluded in July 2019, holds the potential of facilitating the resolution of cross-border conflicts by enabling, accelerating and reducing the cost of the recognition and enforcement of judgments abroad although a number of areas have been excluded from scope. As the academic discussion on the merits of this instrument unfolds and the EU considers the benefits of ratification, this contribution by the EU’s lead negotiator at the Diplomatic Conference presents an overview of the general architecture of the Convention and sheds some light on the individual issues that gave rise to the most intense discussion at the Diplomatic Conference.

C. North: The 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention: A Common Law Perspective

The recent conclusion of the long-awaited 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters (the “Judgments Convention”) provides an opportunity for States to reconsider existing regimes for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments under national law. This paper considers the potential benefits of the Judgments Convention from a common law perspective. It does so by considering the existing regime for recognition and enforcement at common law, and providing an overview of the objectives, structure and a number of key provisions of the Judgments Convention. It then highlights some of the potential benefits of the Convention for certain common law (and other) jurisdictions.

P.-A. Brand: Recognition and enforcement of decisions in administrative law matters

Whereas for civil and commercial matters there are extensive rules of international and European civil procedural law on mutual legal assistance and in particular on the recognition and enforcement of civil court decisions, there is no similar number of regulations on legal assistance and for the international enforcement of administrative court decisions. The same applies to the recognition of foreign administrative acts. This article deals with the existing rules, in particular with regard to decisions in administrative matters, and concludes that the current system of enforcement assistance in the enforcement of administrative decisions should be adapted to the existing systems of recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters.

B. Hess: About missing legal knowledge of German lawyers and courts

This article addresses a decision rendered by the Landgericht Düsseldorf in which the court declined to enforce, under the Brussels Ibis Regulation, a provisional measure issued by a Greek court. Erroneously, in its decision the Landgericht held that applications for refusal of enforcement of foreign decisions (article 49 Brussels Ibis Regulation) are to be lodged with the Landgericht itself. Since the party lodged its application with the Landgericht on the last day of

the time limit, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf eventually held that the application was untimely as it was not lodged with the Oberlandesgericht, instead. The Oberlandesgericht refused to restore the status quo ante because the information about the competent court had been manifestly erroneous, whereas the lawyer is expected to be familiar with articles 49 (2) and 75 lit b) of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. This article argues that jurisdiction over applications for refusal of enforcement is not easily apparent from the European and German legal provisions and that the legal literature addresses the issue inconsistently. This results in a certain degree of uncertainty as concerns jurisdiction over such applications, making it difficult to establish cases of possibly manifestly incorrect applications.

C.F. Nordmeier: Abuse of a power of attorney granted by a spouse – The exclusion of matrimonial property regimes, the place of occurrence of the damage under Brussels Ibis and the escape clause of art. 4 (3) Rome II

The article deals with the abuse of power of attorney by spouses on the basis of a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg. The spouses were both German citizens, the last common habitual residence was in France. After the failure of the marriage, the wife had transferred money from a German bank account of the husband under abusive use of a power of attorney granted to her. The husband sues for repayment. Such an action does not fall within the scope of the exception of matrimonial property regimes under art. 1 (2) (a) Brussels Ibis Regulation. For the purpose of determining the place where the damage occurred (Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation), a distinction can be made between cases of manipulation and cases of error. In the event of manipulation, the bank account will give jurisdiction under Art. 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis Regulation. Determining the law applicable by Art. 4 (3) (2) Rome II Regulation, consideration must be given not only to the statute of marriage effect, but also to the statute of power of attorney. Particular restraint in the application of Art. 4 (3) (2) Rome II Regulation is indicated if the legal relationship to which the non-contractual obligation is to be accessory is not determined by conflict-of-law rules unified on European Union level.

P.F. Schlosser: Governing law provision in the main contract – valid also for the arbitration provision therein?

Both rulings are shortsighted by extending the law, chosen by the parties for the main contract, to the arbitration provision therein. The New York Convention had good reasons for favoring, in the absence of a contractual provision specifically directed to the arbitration provision, the law governing the arbitration at the arbitrators’ seat. For that law the interests of the parties are much more predominant than for their substantive agreements.

F. Rieländer: Choice-of-law clauses in pre-formulated fiduciary contracts for holding shares: Consolidation of the test of unfairness regarding choice-of-law clauses under Art. 3(1) Directive 93/13/EEC

In its judgment, C-272/18, the European Court of Justice dealt with three conflict-of-laws issues. Firstly, it held that the contractual issues arising from fiduciary relationships concerning limited partnership interests are included within the scope of the Rome I Regulation. While these contracts are not covered by the exemption set forth in Art. 1(2)(f) Rome I Regulation, the Court, unfortunately, missed an opportunity to lay down well-defined criteria for determining the types of civil law fiduciary relationships which may be considered functionally equivalent to common law trusts for the purposes of Art. 1(2)(h) Rome I Regulation. Secondly, the Court established that Art. 6(4)(a) Rome I Regulation must be given a strict interpretation in light of its wording and purpose in relation to the requirement “to be supplied to the consumer exclusively in a country other than that in which he has his habitual residence”. Accordingly, this exception is applicable only if the consumer needs to leave the country in which he has his habitual residence for the purpose of enjoying the benefits of the services. Thirdly, the Court re-affirmed that choice-of-law clauses in pre-formulated consumer contracts are subject to a test of unfairness under Art. 3(1) Directive 93/13/EEC. Since the material scope of this Directive is held to apply to choice-of-law clauses, such a clause may be considered as unfair if it misleads the consumer as far as the laws applicable to the contract is concerned.

U. Bergquist: Does a European Certificate of Succession have to be valid not only at the point of application to the Land Registry, but also at the point of completion of the registration in the Land Register?

When it comes to the evidentiary effect of European Certificates of Successions, there are different opinions on whether a certified copy of the certificate has to be valid at the time of the completion of a registration in the Land register. The Kammergericht of Berlin recently ruled that a certified copy loses its evidentiary effect in accordance with art. 69 (2) and (5) of the European Succession Regulation (No. 650/2012) after expiry of the (six-month) validity period, even if the applicant has no influence on the duration of the registration procedure. This contribution presents the different arguments and concludes – in accordance with the Kammergericht – that not the date of submission of the application but the date of completion of the registration has to be decisive for the required proof.

D. Looschelders: International and Local Jurisdiction for Claims under Prospectus Liability

The judgment by the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) deals with international and local jurisdiction for a claim under prospectus liability. It is mainly concerned with the determination of the place in which the harmful event occurred, as stated in Art. 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001. Specifying the damage location can pose significant problems due to the fact that prospectus liability compensates pure economic loss. The OGH had stayed the proceedings in order to make a reference to the European Court of Justice (ECJ) for a preliminary ruling on several questions related to this issue. However, the decision by the ECJ left many details unsettled. This article identifies the criteria developed by the OGH in light of the case. The author agrees with the OGH to designate the damage location in this particular case as the injured party’s place of residence. Nevertheless, he points out the difficulties of this approach in cases where not all investment and damage specific circumstances point to the investor’s country of residence.

W. Voß: U.S.-style Judicial Assistance – Discovery of Foreign Evidence from Foreign Respondents for Use in Foreign Proceedings

In the future, German litigants in German court proceedings will have to hand over to the opposing party evidence located on German territory based on American court orders? In general, under German law, the responsibility to gather information and to clarify the facts of the case lies with the party alleging the respective facts, while third parties can only be forced to produce documents in exceptional circumstances.  However, the possibility to obtain judicial assistance under the American Rule 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) increasingly threatens to circumvent these narrow provisions on document production in transatlantic relations. For judicial assistance this Federal statute provides parties to foreign or international proceedings with access to pre-trial discovery under U.S. law, if the person from whom discovery is sought “resides or is found” in the American court district. Over the years, the statute has been given increasingly broad applicability – a trend that is now being continued by the recent ruling of the Second Circuit Court of Appeals discussed in this article. In this decision, the Court addressed two long-disputed issues: First, it had to decide whether the application of 28 U.S.C. § 1782(a) is limited to a person who actually “resides or is found” in the relevant district or whether the statute could be read more broadly to include all those cases in which a court has personal jurisdiction over a person. Second, the case raised the controversial question of whether 28 U.S.C. § 1782 allows for extraterritorial discovery.

M. Jänterä-Jareborg: Sweden: Non-recognition of child marriages concluded abroad

Combatting child marriages has been on the Swedish legislative agenda since the early 2000s. Sweden’s previously liberal rules on the recognition of foreign marriages have been revisited in law amendments carried out in 2004, 2014 and 2019, each reform adding new restrictions. The 2019 amendment forbids recognition of any marriage concluded abroad as of 1/1/2019 by a person under the age of 18. (Recognition of marriages concluded before 1/1/2019 follows the previously adopted rules.) The marriage is invalid in Sweden directly by force of the new Swedish rules on non-recognition. It is irrelevant whether the parties had any ties to Sweden at the time of the marriage or the lapse of time. The aim is to signal to the world community total dissociation with the harmful practice of child marriages. Exceptionally, however, once both parties are of age, the rule of nonrecognition may be set aside, if called upon for “extraordinary reasons”. No special procedure applies. It is up to each competent authority to decide on the validity of the marriage, independently of any other authority’s previous decision.  While access to this “escape clause” from the rule of non-recognition mitigates the harshness of the system, it makes the outcome unpredictable. As a result, the parties’ relationship may come to qualify as marriage in one context but not in another. Sweden’s Legislative Council advised strongly against the reform, as contrary to the aim of protecting the vulnerable, and in conflict with the European Convention on Human Rights, as well as European Union law. Regrettably, the government and Parliament took no notice of this criticism in substance.

I. Tekdogan-Bahçivanci: Recent Turkish Cases on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Family Law Judgements: An Analysis within the Context of the ECHR

In a number of recent cases, the Turkish Supreme Court changed its previous jurisprudence, rediscovered the ECHR in the meaning of private international law and adopted a fundamental-rights oriented approach on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgements in family matters, i.e. custody and guardianship. This article aims to examine this shift together with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, to find a basis for this shift by analysing Turkey’s obligation to comply with the ECHR and to identify one of the problematic issues of Turkish private international law where the same approach should be adopted: namely recognition and/or enforcement of foreign judgements relating to non-marital forms of cohabitation.

 

Written by Elijah Granet

When a British woman gives birth in a German hospital staffed with British midwives on a contract from the British ministry of defence, what law applies and to what extent? This seemingly simple question took Mrs Justice Foster, in the English and Welsh High Court of Justice, 299 paragraphs to answer in a mammoth judgment released on 24 April: Roberts (a minor) v Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association & Ors [2020] EWHC 994 (QB).   In the course of resolving a variety of PIL issues, Mrs Justice Foster held that the German law of limitations should be disapplied as, on the specific facts of the case, contrary to public policy.

Facts

The British military has maintained a continuous presence in Germany since the end of the Second World War.   In June 2000, Mrs Lauren Roberts, the wife of a British soldier serving in Germany and herself a former soldier, gave birth to her son, Harry, in the Allegemeines Krankenhaus in Viersen (‘AKV’), a hospital in North-Rhine Westphalia.

AKV had been contracted to provide healthcare for British military personnel and their dependents by Guy’s & St Thomas’s Hospital NHS Trust in London, which, in turn, had been contracted  by the British Ministry of Defence (‘MoD’) to procure healthcare services in Germany.  Midwifery care for British personnel and dependents, however, was supplied instead by the Soldiers, Sailors, Airmen and Families Association (‘SSAFA’), a charity.  These British midwives worked under the direction of AKV, taking advantage of the mutual recognition of qualifications under EU law.

Tragically, during the birth, Harry suffered a brain injury which has left him severely disabled.  Mrs Roberts, who brought the action in her son’s name, alleges that negligence on the part of an SSAFA midwife during Harry’s birth caused these injuries. She further alleges that the MoD is vicariously liable for this negligence.  The MoD, in turn, while denying negligence on the midwife’s part, asserts that, regardless, German law  allocated any vicarious liability to AKV.  These allegations have yet to be tried before the court.

The applicable law

Due to unfortunate procedural delays, the case, although begun in 2004, took until 2019 to reach the High Court. This meant that the 2007 Rome II Regulation was inapplicable, and the case instead was governed by English conflicts rules.  The relevant statutory provision was the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions Act).  Section 11 of that Act lays out a general rule of lex loci delicti commissi, but s 12 allows this principle  to be displaced where significant factors connecting a tort or delict to another country mean ‘that it is substantially more appropriate’ to use a law other than that of the location of the tort or delict.  Counsel for Mrs Roberts argued that the s 12 exception should apply, given that inter alia Mrs Roberts was only in Germany at the behest of the Crown, had no familial or personal connections to Germany, moved back to England in 2003, and were being treated by English-trained midwives who were regulated by British professional bodies.

The authoritative  text on English conflicts rules, Dicey, Morris & Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th ed), provides that at para 35-148 that the threshold for invoking s 12 is very high, and that the section is only rarely invoked successfully.  This is reinforced by inter alia  the decision of the English and Welsh Court of Appeal, per Lord Justice Longmore, in Fiona Trust and Holding Corp & Ors v Skarga & Ors [2012] EWCA Civ 275.   Mrs Justice Foster (at para 132) ruled (at paras 132–144) that this threshold was not met.  Her Ladyship placed great significance on the fact that the midwives were required to learn basic German, follow the directions of German obstetricians, operate according to the rules of the German healthcare system, and provide care to military personnel who were living in Germany.  Thus, German law was applicable.

The limitation period question

English jurisprudence addresses questions of foreign law as matters  of objective fact to be determined through expert evidence.  This can prove, as it did in this case, to an extremely complex task.  For the purposes of this article, it is sufficient to note that Mrs Justice Foster ultimately found (after extensive discusssion at paras 192–280) that, in light of various decisions of the German Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) on the application of both the old and new versions of §852 of the Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch (German Civil Code), the relevant limitation period of  three years commenced in 2003, meaning that the claim issued in 2004 was within time.

More relevantly for PIL scholars, Her Ladyship also ruled that, in the alternative, any applicable German limitation period was to be disapplied.  In English law, the disapplication of foreign limitation periods is governed by the appropriately-named Foreign Limitation Periods Act 1984.  While the general rule is that foreign limitation periods displace English limitations, Section 2(2) allows for the disapplication of foreign limitation periods where their application would ‘conflict with public policy to the extent that its application would cause undue hardship’ to a party.  This is, once again, a deliberately high threshold which is rarely applied; the authoritative English text on limitation, McGee on Limitation Periods (8th ed), provides (at para 25-027) that ‘[j]udges should be very slow indeed to substitute their views for the views of a foreign legislature’.   Similarly, Mr Justice Wilkie, in KXL v Murphy [2016] EWHC 3102 (QB), para 45, warned that the entire system of private international law could collapse if public policy was too readily invoked, and the public policy test should only succeed where the foreign provision caused undue hardship which would be ‘contrary to a fundamental principle of justice’.

After surveying the case law, Mrs Justice Foster concluded, at paras 181–184, that undue hardship must be a ‘detriment of real significance’, whose existence (or lack thereof) must be determined through a careful and holistic evaluation of the particular facts of any given situation.  Thus, the question was not if the German limitation period per se caused undue hardship (and indeed, Mrs Justice Foster held at para 182 that it did not), but rather if the application of an otherwise unobjectionable provision to the unique factual matrix of the case would create undue hardship.  Thus, Mrs Justice Foster ruled (at paras 185–6) that, if (contrary to her findings) the German limitation period commenced in 2001, this would be a disproportionate hardship given the disadvantages Mrs Roberts had as a primigravida unfamiliar with obstetrics who had given birth in a foreign country where she did not speak the language. Furthermore, the highly complex organisational structure of medical care, between the SSAFA, the MoD, and AKV would mean that it would be unjust and disproportionate for the relevant ‘knowledge’  for the purposes of the §852 limitation period to have been said to commence in 2001.

Comment

This case demonstrates the complexities which arise when applying abstract rules of private international law to the realities of human affairs.  Although the (by comparative standards) wide discretion accorded to judges in English law has its critics, in this case, the ability to disapply foreign law where it might lead to an unjust result was able to ensure that the Roberts family, for whom one must have the greatest sympathy, were able to proceed with their claim.  It is hard to disagree with Mrs Justice Foster’s conclusion that, on the facts, it would be a disproportionate hardship on the family. Both the case-law and texts are clear that this discretion should be applied only rarely, given that its overuse would be to the detriment of the principles of legal certainty and English conflicts rules, Roberts demonstrates that the common law preference for flexibility can, if used wisely, avert serious injustice in those rare circumstances where the general rules are insufficient.

The author of this post is Eduardo Álvarez-Armas, Brunel University London and Université Catholique de Louvain.

As announced in this blog, Anne Peters, Sabine Gless, Chris Thomale, and Marc-Philippe Weller have recently published an interesting and topical paper entitled Business and Human Rights: Making the Legally Binding Instrument Work in Public, Private and Criminal Law.

The paper, a must-read for anyone interested in the Business & Human Rights field, is an enlightening assessment of several issues and recent developments in the area, and very valuable in its transversal approach to its themes, from the standpoint of several different branches of law.

However, the point the paper makes on the determination of the law applicable to torts arising from human rights violations before EU Member-State courts is open for discussion.

In this respect, the position sustained in the paper basically interprets Articles 4(1) and (3) of the Rome II Regulation in a manner that “replicates”, in respect of torts stemming out of a violation of human rights, what has been legislatively enacted in respect of environmental torts in Article 7 of the same Regulation: the enshrinement of the theory of ubiquity (with differences/different rationale with respect to Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, but still the theory of ubiquity, nevertheless), assorted with victim’s choice.

The following are some difficulties encountered by the said interpretative proposal.

The effet utile of Article 7

If Articles 4(1) and (3) could be interpreted the way suggested in the paper, what would be the effet utile of Article 7 then? Surely, the arguments put forward in respect of the interpretation of Articles 4(1) and (3) as regards human-rights violations also cover environmental torts, and therefore, there would have been no need to enact Article 7 to begin with (a provision which was very controversial during the Rome II legislative process).

The structure of Article 4 Rome II

As Article 4(3) is an escape clause, Articles 4(1) and (3) are not placed in an alternative/elective position, but are exclusive from each other. If Article 4(3) applies, then Article 4(1) does not (see notably Recital 18 of the Rome II Regulation). Human-rights-violation victims may try to plead Article 4(3) (a closer connection to another legal system) as a “getaway” from Article 4(1) if they believe that their circumstances allow them to do so. However, they cannot plead that they have a choice as such in choice-of-law terms between Articles 4(1) and (3). Having a free choice of applicable law in one´s hands (as environmental victims do in Article 7) is not the same as having to contend and prove a manifestly closer connection, as Article 4(3) would require.

The points put forward on legal arbitrage and race to the bottom in Prof. Weller’s blog reply to my first brief comment are sensible, and they sustain conceiving human-rights violations in supply chains as “complex torts” (“délits complexes”, “distantdeliktze”) where the action/omission takes place in the parent company’s headquarters and the result materializes in the “host country”. Therefore, as suggested, they may potentially sustain attempting to resort to Article 4(3) to plead for the closer connection to the law of the headquarters of the parent company (provided that evidence allows for it), but they do not seem to sustain an “ubiquity + choice by the victim” construction.

Indeed, I largely share Prof. Weller’s arguments on legal arbitrage and race to the bottom in respect of environmental torts (as a preview of an English monograph coming in 2021 in Hart’s Studies in Private International Law, see E. Álvarez Armas, “Contentieux du droit international privé pour responsabilité environnementale devant le juge européen : la détermination du droit applicable comme outil de gouvernance globale environnementale”, Annales de Droit de Louvain, Vol. 77-1/2017, pp. 63-87; and E. Álvarez Armas, “Daños al medioambiente y Derecho Internacional Privado Europeo: ¿Quid de la determinación de la ley aplicable como herramienta de gobernanza global medioambiental?”, Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, t. XVIII/2018, pp. 193–225). However, the core difference is that Art. 7, as it stands nowadays, structurally allows for these ideas, while Articles 4(1) and (3) do not.

The ratio legis of Article 4 Rome II

If the rationale of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation was the protection of victims, then, as Articles 4(1) and (3) are general provisions, nothing would hinder any other victim of torts not specifically covered by “special” provisions(Articles 5 and following) from benefiting from the same construction. This would significantly hinder the foreseeability of the applicable law.

However, the policy rationale of Article 4, as the main provision in the Regulation, is not the protection of victims, but “a reasonable balance between the interests of the person claimed to be liable and the person who has sustained damage” and “the foreseeability of court decisions”, as explained by Recital 16 of the Rome II Regulation. More specifically:

[a] connection with the country where the direct damage occurred (lex loci damni) strikes a fair balance between the interests of the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining the damage, and also reflects the modern approach to civil liability and the development of systems of strict liability.

These ideas can be tracked back to the explanatory memorandum to the Rome II Proposal, where the EU Commission repeatedly refers to “foreseeability” and “certainty” in the determination of the applicable law, explicitly rejects the theory of ubiquity as a potential general solution to be enshrined in the Regulation’s main rule (p. 11 – penultimate paragraph) and concludes (pp. 11-12) that

[t]he rule also reflects the need to strike a reasonable balance between the various interests at stake. The Commission has not adopted the principle of favouring the victim as a basic rule, which would give the victim the option of choosing the law most favourable to him. It considers that this solution would go beyond the victim’s legitimate expectations and would reintroduce uncertainty in the law, contrary to the general objective of the proposed Regulation. The solution in Article [4] is therefore a compromise between the two extreme solutions of applying the law of the place where the event giving rise to the damage occurs and giving the victim the option.

Precisely, as an exception, the explicit ratio legis of Article 7 Rome II (per Recital 25) is not to protect, but even to favour the victim (favor laesi) by allowing her the prerogative of choosing the applicable law.

Overall, the arguments put forward in the paper may sustain de lege ferenda that an Art. 7 bis be added to Rome II, enshrining the theory of ubiquity and victim’s choice in respect of torts arising from the violation of human rights. However, the current text of the Regulation does not seem to comfort the paper´s interpretative proposal.

Anatol Dutta and Wolfgang Wurmnest edited a book on European Private International Law and its ramifications with treaties signed by EU-Member States with third countries. The publication focuses on inheritance matters, i.e. Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 on matters of succession.

The national reports prepared feature Austria, Belgium, Croatia, The Czech Republic, Finland, Sweden, France, Germany and Italy from the EU. Reports from Bosnia and Herzegovina, Serbia, North Macedonia and Montenegro, Iran, Switzerland and Turkey, cover some non-EU jurisdictions. The third and last part of the publication features articles from the editors: Prof. Dutta approaches the issue from the perspective of the European Union, whereas Prof. Wurmnest offers a Comparative Report and Policy Perspectives.

The compilation of treaties listed in the Annex, presented in English translation, is undoubtedly giving added value to the book.

The work done by editors and authors, and the future plans of the endeavor, namely to cover wider aspects of European Private International Law, deserves our gratitude for providing us with very interesting material in the field.

More information on the publication is available here.

Continuité du service public européen de la justice : la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne prévoit de reprendre les audiences de plaidoiries à partir du 25 mai 2020

In Strategic Technologies v Procurement Bureau of the Republic of China Ministry of National Defence [2020] EWHC 362 (QB), Carr J i.a. set aside a November 2016 order by Supperstone J granting a certificate under Article 53 Brussels Ia.

Justice Carr adopts the routine approach of former English case-law calling the Brussels regime the ‘Judgments Regulation’. The certificate was issued  in relation to a default judgment issued in 2009 by Claimant, Strategic Technologies against Defendant, the Ministry of National Defence (“the MND”) of the Republic of China (“ROC”), also and better known as Taiwan.

Carr J is right when at 134 ff she rejects the route taken by claimants (and adopted by Supperstone J) that the principle in CJEU C-192/92 Owens Bank v Bracco (that the Brussels Convention does not apply to proceedings for the enforcement of judgments given in civil and commercial matters in non-contracting states) has no application where, as here, the judgment of a non-contracting state (ie Cayman) has become a judgment of a Member State (ie the United Kingdom).

She refers to the clear language in formerly A25 Brussels Convention, now Article 2 Brussels Ia, that for a ruling to be a judgment it must be given by a court or a tribunal of a Member State. Adoption of a judgment by another State is not covered. She notes the CJEU referred to this definition in its Owens Bank v Bracco ruling. She also notes that the St. Vincent judgment in Owens v Bracco had in fact also been registered in England by the time that the House of Lords referred the matter to the CJEU.

Other issues in the judgment are less relevant to the blog. Do note that Taiwan does not call upon sovereign immunity: at 3: ‘The MND is an arm of the government of the ROC. Although it is by its own law a state, the ROC has an unusual status in international, and English, law: although it has all the generally recognised characteristics of statehood, and is often treated as a country, it is not recognised as a state by the United Kingdom and there are no formal diplomatic relations between the two. For the purpose of these proceedings only, and without making any wider concession, the MND does not rely on the State Immunity Act 1978.’ Clearly this case was not considered by Taiwan to be a case to force the recognition issue.

Geert.

 

The sixth edition of Derecho de los Negocios Internacionales, a treatise on international business law authored by José Carlos Fernández Rozas, Rafael Arenas García and Pedro Alberto De Miguel Asensio, was published in March 2020 by the Spanish publisher Iustel.

The new edition is arranged into the following sections: Regulating Cross-Border Business Activities; Intellectual Property, Unfair Competition and Antitrust; Company Law; International Commercial Contracts; Sale of Goods and Transport; Means of Payment, Guarantees and Financing; Distribution Contracts, Transfer of Technology and E-Commerce; Insolvency Proceedings and International Commercial Arbitration.

See here for more information, and here to access the extended table of contents.

Selon la CEDH, portent atteinte au droit au respect à la vie privée la mesure de prélèvement d’un échantillon de salive non explicitement prévue par la loi nationale au moment des faits et la permission donnée par le juge national d’user de la force dans cet objectif en dépit de tout fondement textuel l’autorisant.  

en lire plus

Brexit and its legal consequences was the topic of an earlier post in this blog, suggesting the United Kingdom should join the Lugano Convention. The British government has now taken the first step in this direction.18

The UK’s Application for Accession

On 8 April 2020, the UK deposited an application to accede to the Lugano Convention with the Swiss Federal Council as the depositary of the Convention (Article 69(2) Lugano Convention). In accordance with Article 72(2) of the Lugano Convention, the information was transmitted to the Contracting Parties. Enclosed as Annex A was the information required under Article 72(1) of the Convention, amounting to 41 pages. The necessary French translation (Article 70(2) Lugano Convention) is still missing.

Switzerland requested to convene a meeting of the Standing Committee in accordance with Article 4(2) of Protocol 2 to the Convention. The Signatories of the Convention (the EU, Denmark, Iceland, Norway and Switzerland) now have to decide whether to grant the application. According to Article 72(3) Lugano Convention, they shall endeavour to give their consent at the latest within one year.

The Situation During the Transition Period

Already on 30 January 2020, the Swiss Federal Council informed the Signatories of a document it had received titled Annex to the Note Verbale on the Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community. The objective of this Annex is to secure the UK’s continued treatment as a party to the Lugano Convention during the transition period, which runs from 1 February 2020 to at least 31 December 2020, subject to a further extension for up to one or two years.

The Annex to the Note Verbale first sets out some principles of the Withdrawal Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK. In particular, it recalls that the “Withdrawal Agreement encompasses international agreements concluded by the Union” (point 4 Annex). In relation to the EU and Euratom, the UK is bound by these international agreements during the transition period (Art 129(1) Withdrawal Agreement). Furthermore, the Withdrawal Agreement provides that the EU notifies parties to international agreements that the UK is treated by the Union as a Member State for the purposes of these international agreements (point 5 Annex).

After recalling these principles, the Annex to the Note Verbale adds the following sentence (point 6 Annex):

It is understood that the principles set out in this Annex also extend to international instruments and arrangements without legally binding force entered into by the Union or Euratom and to international agreements referred to in point 4 above which are provisionally applied.

The Swiss Federal Council has asked the Signatories to consent to the Note Verbale, which the EU has already done. If the other Signatories agree as well, the Lugano Convention could remain binding on all parties during the transition period. Unfortunately, the outcome of the process is unknown, which creates unnecessary uncertainty.

Back to the Past?

The UK’s application to accede to the Lugano Convention is the strongest indication yet that the UK wishes to continue participating in judicial cooperation in Europe. There are important voices against the UK’s accession to the Convention. Without it, though, those seeking legal protection will encounter obstacles in the enforcement of British judgments on the European continent, and vice versa. It therefore seems better the UK’s request would be granted.

A quick note on Granville Technology & Ors v Infineon Technologies AG & Anor [2020] EWHC 415 (Comm) which concerns proceedings brought by three companies who were engaged in the assembly and sale of desktop PCs and notebooks. The claims arise from a price-fixing cartel, the subject of findings by the EC in COMP/38511. The Cartel concerned the market for direct random access memory (“DRAM”) and Rambus DRAM used in the manufacture of PCs and Notebooks.

Both Infineon (domiciled at Germany) and Micron Europe (of England) have pleaded, among other defences, that the Claimants’ claims are time-barred under relevant UK limitation statutes – their arguments were partially upheld. I keep the note very short for seemingly not at issue was either jurisdiction or applicable law. Of note is the classic appearance in anchored competition cases of the group liability argument held in Cooper Tire, Cooper Tire & Rubber Co Europe Ltd v Shell Chemicals UK Ltd [2010] EWCA Civ 864 , referred to by Foxton J at 123 (followed by a decision on the need for discovery (held: none here) given the Court of Appeal’s finding in Cooper Tire that anchor defendants have to have been parties or aware of the anti-competitive conduct of their parent company” and that “The strength (or otherwise) of any such case cannot be assessed (or indeed usefully particularised) until after disclosure of documents because it is in the nature of anti-competitive arrangements that they are shrouded in secrecy.”

Geert.

 

 

 

 

 

Follow-on damage suit following #cartel.
Pleas of statute of limitation (time-barred). Reference ia to Cooper Tyre. https://t.co/EefHASBQ8S

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 25, 2020