Agrégateur de flux

Conventions & Instruments

On 14 May 2024, Georgia deposited its instrument of ratification of the 2007 Child Support Convention and of the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. With the ratification of Georgia, 51 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention, while 32 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 14 May 2024, the kick-off meeting of the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) was held online. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG will study the applicable law and jurisdiction issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs. More information is available here.

From 14 to 17 May 2024, the First Regional Meeting of Judges of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ) from Latin America and the Caribbean was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with the aim of fostering discussion on the proper and effective implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. More information is available here.

On 15 May 2024, the kick-off meeting of the Digital Tokens Project was held online. Under this project, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH, in partnership with relevant subject-matter experts and Observers, is studying the private international law issues relating to digital tokens. More information is available here.

On 17 and 21 May 2024, the first meetings of the Working Groups on the Practical Handbooks and Country Profiles for the 1965 Service and 1970 Convention were held online. More information is available here.

On 29 May 2024, the first meeting of the Working Group established to complete the Country Profile and work on the draft Cooperation Request Recommended Model Form for the 1996 Child Protection Convention was held online. More information is available here.

 

Calls for Tender

The HCCH recently published a call for tenders for the development of electronic Country Profiles (e-Country Profiles) for a number of key HCCH Conventions. The deadline for the submission of tenders is 27 August 2024 (17:00 CEST). More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

The second conference of the European Association of Private International Law will take place in Wrocław on 6-8 June 2024. As the readers of this blog know, the topic of the event will be Private International Law and Global Crises. Organised by Agnieszka Frąckowiak-Adamska, the conference will begin on 6 June, in the afternoon, with […]

Edward Elgar has just published the second edition of Conflict of Laws and the Internet by Pedro De Miguel Asensio.

The blurb reads:

In this thoroughly revised second edition, Pedro De Miguel Asensio presents a practical analysis of jurisdiction, choice of law, and recognition and enforcement of judgments in the context of online activities, examining areas where private legal relationships are most affected by the Internet. Addressing the tension between the ubiquity of the Internet and the territorial nature of national legal orders, the author sets out the latest developments across multiple jurisdictions in this dynamic field.

 

Key Features:

• Updated coverage of EU Law and recent case law
• Accessible guidance on how to combat illegal content
• Scrupulous analysis of complex conflict of laws issues that arise with Internet activities
• New sections providing extensive explanations of the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act
• New material on other instruments in the fields of AI, crypto-markets, audiovisual media services, intermediary services, product safety and terrorist content online
• Overview of key topics including information society services, digital services, data protection, defamation, copyright, trademarks, unfair competition and online contracts 

 

Conflict of Laws and the Internet continues to be an essential guide for practitioners and policy-makers with applications for IT law experts and companies active in e-commerce. The book’s strong doctrinal base for an area of ever-increasing importance will also be valuable for academics working in the fields of IT law and private international law.

 

More information plus access to its full table of contents are available here  https://www.e-elgar.com/shop/gbp/conflict-of-laws-and-the-internet-9781035315123.html

Jusqu’alors très méfiante à l’égard du procureur, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne lui permet de contrôler l’émission d’une décision d’enquête européenne en vue de la transmission de preuves déjà recueillies directement par l’État d’exécution, si le droit de l’État d’émission le prévoit et selon ses conditions. Un contrôle judiciaire ultérieur doit, néanmoins, garantir le respect des droits fondamentaux des personnes concernées. De surcroît, lorsqu’un État réalise une interception sur le territoire d’un autre, il est tenu de le lui notifier en s’adressant à toute autorité que l’État interceptant considère apte à cet effet. Enfin, le juge pénal doit, dans certaines circonstances, écarter des éléments de preuve si la personne concernée n’est pas en mesure de les commenter.

en lire plus

This month Prof. Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, a renowned expert in Private International Law, has been appointed president of the Curatorium of the Hague Academy of International Law. He succeeded Prof. Yves Daudet. For more information, click here and here.

Prof. Fernández Arroyo is the first Latin American to ever hold that position.

Below is an image circulated by ASADIP. Many congratulations!

This case note is kindly provided by Dr. Samuel Vuattoux-Bock, LL.M. (Kiel), Freiburg University (Germany)

 

On May 23, 2024, the Stuttgart Higher regional Court (Oberlandesgericht), Germany, ordered the return of a child to Israel under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. The war waged by Israel following the terrorist attack of October 7, 2023 is not sufficient in itself to establish a concrete risk of physical or psychological harm to the one-year-old child.

1.    Facts

The decision is based on the following facts. A couple moved to Israel in 2020. They had a child together in 2023 (with Greek citizenship) in Haifa (northern Israel). In February 2024, the mother of the child (German citizenship) flew to Reutlingen (Germany) without the knowledge and consent of the father. Thereupon, the father filed an application for the return of the child to Israel under the regime of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, as Israel is a member state thereof. Both the District Court (Amtsgericht) and the Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart ordered the return of the child to Israel.

2.    Decision of the Court

The Higher Regional Court ruled that there was no actual, concrete risk of physical or psychological harm within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention for the child in Israel. The formal state of war in Israel and the region is not sufficient to justify such a risk. Furthermore, the situation is not comparable to the situation in Ukraine, where the same court refused to order the return of the child in 2022. The court based its reasoning on three main points: the alert levels of both the German and Israeli authorities do not indicate a concrete risk to the child’s safety; in light of the recent situation in Israel, and in particular the “Iron Dome”, there is no concrete risk to the child being in Israel; the situation, despite the state of war in the Middle East, is not comparable to the war situation in Ukraine.

a.    Sufficient security level and no concrete danger for the child

The mother argued in court that the threat of “massacres and attacks” in Israel is growing, as is the threat of Hezbollah attacks from Lebanon. The mother also claimed that Hezbollah rockets had been fired into the suburbs of Haifa, where the child lived.
The court first referred to both German and Israeli travel warnings. According to the German authorities, Israel is in a “formal state of war” and an escalation is possible at any time. On the contrary, the Israeli National Emergency Portal of the Home Front Command shows the regions of Tel-Aviv/Haifa/Ashdod-Gimmel and Netanya-West as secured (lowest emergency level “green- full activity”). Since travel warnings alone are not sufficient to establish a danger under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention, the Court gave precedence to the security assessment of the Israeli authorities.
For the Court, the risk associated with the current conflict in the Middle East is not sufficiently concrete with respect to the child’s situation. To justify its decision, the Court analyzed the various actual security and war events of the past month in Israel. The hostage-taking by the terrorist group Hamas on October 7, 2023 cannot be considered an actual risk today. For the Court, the Israeli offensive in the Gaza Strip makes a repetition of such events “from a realistic point of view” very unlikely (No. 87). Furthermore, the drone and missile attacks of April 14, 2024, from foreign countries, in particular from Iran, must be analyzed as exceptional and, as such, cannot be taken into account in the assessment of the risk to the child (No. 88). Moreover, the Israeli air defense system “Iron Dome” has been effective in this context (No. 88, 96).
The Court draws the same conclusions with regard to the suicide bombings, explosions and other rocket fire that have occurred on Israeli soil. The Court sees only an abstract risk and a need for increased vigilance. These attacks, as terrorist attacks, are merely “criminal activities of individuals” (No. 91). These events were not presented by the mother in a sufficiently concrete manner to allow the court to see a concrete physical or psychological risk for the child. Finally, the Court bases its decision on the fact that the parents moved to Israel in 2020, informed of the complex situation in the Middle East. The Court cannot ignore that the security situation in Israel has been “tense” for some time (No. 91). For the Court, the situation here is definitely different from the situation in Ukraine.

b.    Situation not comparable to Ukraine

The Higher Regional Court of Stuttgart decided in 2022 to refuse the return of a child to Ukraine (specifically Odessa) based on the actual risk according to Art. 13 (1) b) due to the war provoked by Russia. The court explained in detail why the situation in Israel was not comparable.
In contrast to Israel, Ukraine faces a massive, formally organized war, with military troops on its soil (No. 94), coming from a “militarily dominant great power” (No. 97). Israel, on the other hand, faces attacks coming from outside its own country (besides the concrete events around the Gaza Strip). Even taking into account Iran, the concrete threat is not comparable (No. 97). Moreover, the number of victims in the Russian-Ukrainian war since February 2022 is massively not comparable with the (civilian and military) victims in Israel, even taking into account the victims of the Hamas attack on October 7, 2023 (No. 95). Finally, according to the Court, the (so far) efficient Israeli “Iron Dome” provides good security for the entire Israeli territory, in contrast to Ukraine, whose large territory is much harder to defend against air attacks. (No. 96).

3.    Comparison with decision from neighbor states toward Israel (France, Belgium)

In the past, some other European courts have found that the explosive situation in the Middle East and Israel constituted a risk within the meaning of Art. 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention. The Court of Appeal of Brussels, in a decision of 2003, did not find a concrete risk for the child in Israel, but (very similar to the Stuttgart Court) only a general situation for the civilian population, including in view of the then possible war of the USA against Iraq and the training of children with gas masks. A decision of the French Court of Appeal of Chambéry in 2016 (confirmed by the French Cour de Cassation in 2017) decided to order the return of children suffering from AIDS to Israel, justified by the fact that Israel offers a good treatment for AIDS patients and that Israel, even if it experiences difficulties, is “definitely not at war”. The question remains whether the court would have made a similar decision today, given the current situation in Israel and the Gaza Strip.

4.    Final remarks

It appears that for the Court, the fact that the one-year-old child has not yet experienced a concrete attack in Israel is sufficient to establish a risk under Art. 13(1)(b) of the Hague Convention (this was the case, for example, in the Ukraine decision 2022). In view of the highly unstable situation and the escalation in the region, it is at least questionable to disregard the psychological aspects of experiencing, for example, air defense alerts and such stressful war situations – especially for a very young child. Since the political time is much faster than the judicial time, a strong discrepancy of decision can occur regarding the abduction of children in war zones. On the other hand, the interests of such a young child, who will soon be sent to school and separated from his father for an unknown period of time, must be taken into consideration. It is regrettable that this aspect did not play a major role in the Court’s decision. Thus, the state of war in Israel and the Middle East is not only extremely complex in terms of diplomacy and public international law, but also in terms of private international law.

Conny
Rapprochement des législations
Commandes en ligne : le bouton de commande ou une fonction similaire doit clairement indiquer qu’en y cliquant, le consommateur se soumet à une obligation de payer

Airbnb Ireland
E-commerce : un État membre ne peut imposer des obligations supplémentaires à un prestataire de services en ligne établi dans un autre État membre

Katarina Trimmings (University of Aberdeen), Sharon Shakargy (Hebrew University of Jerusalem) and Claire Achmad (Universiteit Leiden) edited Research Handbook on Surrogacy and the Law. Published by Edward Elgar in its Research Handbooks in Family Law series, the book provides a multifaceted exploration of surrogacy and the law, examining a variety of critical yet under-researched perspectives […]

Collective actions and the financing of complex mass damage cases have been among the most debated and controversial topics in civil justice in Europe over the past decade. It doesn’t need much explanation that oftentimes these complex cases involving a multiplicity of parties and events or consequences taking place in different countries trigger private international law questions, as for instance the ongoing evaluation of the Brussels I-bis Regulation evidences (see among others the 2023 Study in support of the evaluation; a 2021 Working Paper by Burkhard Hess; a 2022 report by BEUC on PIL and Cross-border Collective Redress). Another key issue is the funding of these inherently costly litigations. The Representative Action Directive, applicable since June 2023, and the European Parliament Resolution on Responsible private funding of litigation, adopted in 2022, have proliferated discussions on the funding of collective actions. With the entry into force of the Dutch collective damages procedure (WAMCA) in 2020, enabling compensatory actions, the Netherlands has re-confirmed its reputation as one of the frontrunners in having a well-developed framework for collective actions and settlements in Europe. High stake cases involving privacy, environmental law, human rights and consumer law have found their way to the courts and have benefitted from third party funding.

These developments have triggered the Dutch Research and Documentation Centre of the Ministry of Justice and Security to commission a Study on the need for a procedural fund for collective actions, published in 2023 (in Dutch). The book Financing Collective Actions in the Netherlands: Towards a Litigation Fund?, based on this study and including updates, has just been published (Eleven International Publishing 2024) and is available open access. The book is authored by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University), Ianika Tzankova (Tilburg University), Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam, researcher Vici team) and Karlijn van Doorn (Tilburg University). It discusses developments in Dutch collective actions from a regulatory perspective, including the implementation of the RAD, and contains a quantitative and qualitative analysis of cases that have been brought under the WAMCA. It then examines funding aspects of collective actions from a regulatory, empirical and comparative perspective. It delves into different funding modes, including market developments in third party litigation funding, and  addresses the question of the necessity, feasibility, and design of a (revolving) litigation fund for collective actions.

The hardcover version of the book can be ordered from the publisher’s website, which also provides access to the free digital open access version through the publisher’s portal.

A launch event and webinar on ‘Financing Collective Actions: Current Debates in Europe and Beyond’ will take place on 3 July from 15-17.15 CET. Confirmed speakers include Jasminka Kalajdzic (University of Windsor) and Rachael Mulheron (Queen Mary University London). Registration for free here.

Hypo Vorarlberg Bank / CRU (Contributions ex ante 2022)
Politique économique
Le Tribunal constate que le calcul des contributions ex ante pour 2022 au Fonds de résolution unique (FRU) est illégal

Pologne / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal maintient l’obligation de la Pologne de payer l’astreinte journalière infligée dans le cadre de l'affaire relative à la mine de Turów

On 25 April 2024, the CJEU handed down a landmark decision on EU company law. It curtailed the so-called “seat theory”, which still features in many Member State laws, to the extent that it can no longer be applied to companies from the European Economic Area (EEA). The Background The law governing companies has long […]

On Tuesday, June 4, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 45th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CEST). Martin Gebauer (Universität Tübingen) will speak, in German, about the topic

Substantive Law Impacts on Conflict of Laws Thinking

The presentation will be followed by an 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.

On 31 May 2024, the Aberdeen Law School will be holding a book launch event in memory of the late Professor Jonathan Fitchen – a former Director of the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law and a distinguished private international law scholar, who passed away after a brief illness on the 22nd of January 2021.

Also on 31 May 2024, the Aberdeen Centre for Private International Law will be holding the second workshop in a series of workshops organised under the auspices of an RSE-funded research project titled ‘Laying the Foundations for a Restatement of Scots Private International Law’.

The first issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé of 2024 has been released. It contains two articles, several briefing notes as well as numerous case notes on private international law. In the first article, Nicolas Nord (University of Strasbourg & ICCS) examines the role of French civil registrars in the international context, […]

Dear readers, dear EAPIL Members, You might have received the email below, from  “Gilles Cuniberti <presidentboardcom@gmail.com>. This is a fraud, please do not answer. GC   Hello [xxx], How are you doing Today? Please can you help the association with something today? Let me know so I can send you some more information. However I […]

According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only parties to a choice of court agreement are subject to the rights and obligations arising from it. However, there are exceptions to the privity doctrine where a third party may be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement, even if it did not expressly agree to the clause. A choice of court agreement in a bill of lading which is agreed by the carrier and shipper and transferred to a consignee, or third-party holder is a ubiquitous example.

Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation does not expressly address the effect of choice of court agreements on third parties. However, CJEU jurisprudence has laid down that the choice of court agreement may bind a third party in some contexts even in the absence of the formal validity requirements. Effectively, this is a context specific harmonised approach to developing substantive contract law rules to regulate the effectiveness of choice of court agreements. Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation prescribes formal requirements that must be satisfied if the choice of court agreement is to be considered valid. Consent is also a necessary requirement for the validity of a choice of court agreement. (Case C-322/14 Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH EU:C:2015:334, [26]; Case C 543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [26]). Although formal validity and consent are independent concepts, the two requirements are connected because the purpose of the formal requirements is to ensure the existence of consent (Jaouad El Majdoub, [30]; Refcomp, [28]). The CJEU has referred to the close relationship between formal validity and consent in several decisions. The court has made the validity of a choice of court agreement subject to an ‘agreement’ between the parties (Case C-387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [13]; Case C-24/76 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v Ruwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH EU:C:1976:177, [7]; Case C-25/76 Galeries Segoura SPRL v Societe Rahim Bonakdarian EU:C:1976:178, [6]; Case C-106/95 Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft eG (MSG) v Les Gravieres Rhenanes SARL EU:C:1997:70, [15]). The Brussels Ia Regulation imposes upon the Member State court the duty of examining whether the clause conferring jurisdiction was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated (ibid). The court has also stated that the very purpose of the formal requirements imposed by Article 17 (now Article 25 of Brussels Ia) is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established (Case 313/85 Iveco Fiat v Van Hool EU:C:1986:423, [5]).

In similar vein, the CJEU has developed its case law as to when a third party may be deemed to be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement. In the context of bills of lading, the CJEU has decided that if, under the national law of the forum seised and its private international law rules, the third-party holder of the bill acquired the shipper’s rights and obligations, the choice of court agreement will also be enforceable between the third party and the carrier (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 CastellettiEU:C:1999:142, [41]; C 387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [24], [25] and [30], C 352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335, [65]; Cf. Article 67(2) of the Rotterdam Rules 2009). There is no separate requirement that the third party must consent in writing to the choice of court agreement. On the other hand, if the third party has not succeeded to any of the rights and obligations of the original contracting parties, the enforceability of the choice of court agreement against it is predicated on actual consent (C 387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [26]; C 543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [36]). A new choice of court agreement will need to be concluded between the holder and the carrier as the presentation of the bill of lading would not per se give rise to such an agreement (AG Slynn in Tilly Russ).

Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation did not contain an express provision on the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement. The law of some Member States referred substantive validity of a choice of court agreement to the law of the forum whereas other Member States referred it to the applicable law of the substantive contract (Heidelberg Report [326], 92). However, Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies the law of the chosen forum (lex fori prorogatum) including its choice of law rules to the issue of the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’).

The CJEU recently adjudicated on whether the enforceability of English choice of court agreements in bills of lading against third party holders was governed by the choice of law rule on ‘substantive validity’ in Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. (Joined Cases C 345/22 and C 347/22 Maersk A/S v Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros SA and Case C 346/22 Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros SA v MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.) The CJEU held that the new provision in Article 25(1) referring to the law of the Member State chosen in the choice of court agreement including its private international law rules is not applicable. A third-party holder of a bill of lading remains bound by a choice of court agreement, if the law of the forum seised and its private international law rules make provision for this. Notwithstanding, the principle of primacy of EU law precludes Spanish special provisions for the subrogation of a choice of court agreement that undermine Article 25 as interpreted by CJEU case law.

In the three preliminary references under Article 267 TFEU, the enforceability of English choice of court agreements between Spanish insurance companies and maritime transport companies was at issue. The insurance companies exercised the right of subrogation to step into the shoes of the consignees and sued the maritime transport companies for damaged goods. The central issue in the proceedings was whether the choice of court agreements concluded in the original contracts of carriage evidenced by the bills of lading between the carrier and the shipper also bound the insurance companies. The transport companies objected to Spanish jurisdiction based on the English choice of court agreements. The Spanish courts referred questions to the CJEU on the interpretation of choice of court agreements under the Brussels Ia Regulation.

At the outset, the CJEU observed that the Brussels Ia Regulation is applicable to the disputes in the main proceedings as the proceedings were commenced by the insurance companies before 31 December 2020. (Article 67(1)(a), Article 127(1) and (3) of the EU Withdrawal Agreement)

The CJEU proceeded to consider whether Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the enforceability of a choice of court clause against the third-party holder of the bill of lading containing that clause is governed by the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated by that clause. The CJEU characterised the subrogation of a choice of court agreement to a third party as not being subject to the choice of law rule governing substantive validity in Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. (C 519/19 DelayFix EU:C:2020:933, [40]; C 543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [25]; C 366/13 Profit Investment SIM EU:C:2016:282, [23]) The CJEU relied on a distinction between the substantive validity and effects of choice of court agreements (Maersk, [48]; AG Collins in Maersk, [54]-[56]). The latter logically proceeds from the former, but the procedural effects are governed by the autonomous concept of consent as applied to the enforceability of choice of court agreements against third parties developed by CJEU case law.

Although Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation differs from Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisprudence of the CJEU is capable of being applied to the current provision (Maersk, [52]; C 358/21 Tilman, EU:C:2022:923, [34]; AG Collins in Maersk, [51]-[54]). The CJEU concluded that where the third-party holder of the bill of lading has succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations in accordance with the national law of the court seised then a choice of court agreement that the third party has not expressly agreed upon can nevertheless be relied upon against it (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C 387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [24], [25] and [30], C 352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335, [65]; Maersk, [51]; Cf. Article 67(2) of the Rotterdam Rules 2009). In this case, there is no distinct requirement that the third party must consent in writing to the choice of court agreement. The third party cannot extricate itself from the mandatory jurisdiction as ‘acquisition of the bill of lading could not confer upon the third party more rights than those attaching to the shipper under it’ (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C 387/98Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [25]; Maersk, [62]). Conversely, where the relevant national law does not provide for such a relationship of substitution, that court must ascertain whether that third party has expressly agreed to the choice of court clause (C 387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [26]; C 543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [36]; Maersk, [51]).

According to Spanish law, a third-party to a bill of lading has vested in it all rights and obligations of the original contract of carriage but the choice of court agreement is only enforceable if it has been negotiated individually and separately with the third party. The CJEU held that such a provision would undermine Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation as interpreted by the CJEU case law (Maersk, [60]; AG Collins in Maersk, [61]). As per the principle of primacy of EU law, the national court has been instructed to interpret Spanish law to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with the Brussels Ia Regulation (Maersk, [63]; C 205/20Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Direct effect) EU:C:2022:168) and if no such interpretation is possible, to disapply the national rule (Maersk, [65]).

The choice of law rule in Article 25(1) is not an innovation without utility. A broad interpretation of the concept of substantive validity would encroach upon the autonomous concept of consent developed by CJEU case law yet it could avoid the need for a harmonised EU substantive contract law approach to the enforceability of choice of court agreements against third parties. The CJEU in its decision arrived at a solution that upheld the choice of court agreement by the predictable application of its established case law without disturbing the status quo. In practical terms, the application of the choice of law rule in Article 25(1) would have led to a similar outcome. However, the unnecessary displacement of the CJEU’s interpretative authorities on the matter would have increased litigation risk in multi-state transactions. By distinguishing substantive validity from the effects of choice of court agreements, the CJEU does not extrapolate the choice of law rule on substantive validity to issues of contractual enforceability that are extrinsic to the consent or capacity of the original contracting parties. On balance, a departure from the legal certainty provided by the extant CJEU jurisprudence was not justified. It should be observed that post-Brexit, there has been a resurgence of English anti-suit injunctions in circumstances such as these where proceedings in breach of English dispute resolution agreements are commenced in EU Member State courts.

This guest post was authored by Dr Mukarrum Ahmed, Barrister (Lincoln’s Inn), and Lecturer in Business Law & Director of PG Admissions at Lancaster University Law School. I am most grateful to Dr Ahmed for complementing my earlier post on the CJEU case discussed, Joined Cases C‑345/22 and C‑347/22 Maersk.

 

According to the doctrine of privity of contract, only parties to a choice of court agreement are subject to the rights and obligations arising from it. However, there are exceptions to the privity doctrine where a third party may be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement, even if it did not expressly agree to the clause. A choice of court agreement in a bill of lading which is agreed by the carrier and shipper and transferred to a consignee, or third-party holder is a ubiquitous example.

Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation does not expressly address the effect of choice of court agreements on third parties. However, CJEU jurisprudence has laid down that the choice of court agreement may bind a third party in some contexts even in the absence of the formal validity requirements. Effectively, this is a context specific harmonised approach to developing substantive contract law rules to regulate the effectiveness of choice of court agreements.

Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation prescribes formal requirements that must be satisfied if the choice of court agreement is to be considered valid. Consent is also a necessary requirement for the validity of a choice of court agreement. (Case C-322/14 Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH EU:C:2015:334, [26]; Case C‐543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [26]).

Although formal validity and consent are independent concepts, the two requirements are connected because the purpose of the formal requirements is to ensure the existence of consent (Jaouad El Majdoub, [30]; Refcomp, [28]). The CJEU has referred to the close relationship between formal validity and consent in several decisions. The court has made the validity of a choice of court agreement subject to an ‘agreement’ between the parties (Case C-387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [13]; Case C-24/76 Estasis Salotti di Colzani Aimo e Gianmario Colzani s.n.c. v Rüwa Polstereimaschinen GmbH EU:C:1976:177, [7]; Case C-25/76 Galeries Segoura SPRL v Société Rahim Bonakdarian EU:C:1976:178, [6]; Case C-106/95 Mainschiffahrts-Genossenschaft eG (MSG) v Les Gravières Rhénanes SARL EU:C:1997:70, [15]). The Brussels Ia Regulation imposes upon the Member State court the duty of examining whether the clause conferring jurisdiction was in fact the subject of consensus between the parties, which must be clearly and precisely demonstrated (ibid). The court has also stated that the very purpose of the formal requirements imposed by Article 17 (now Article 25 of Brussels Ia) is to ensure that consensus between the parties is in fact established (Case 313/85 Iveco Fiat v Van Hool EU:C:1986:423, [5]).

In similar vein, the CJEU has developed its case law as to when a third party may be deemed to be bound by or derive benefit from a choice of court agreement. In the context of bills of lading, the CJEU has decided that if, under the national law of the forum seised and its private international law rules, the third-party holder of the bill acquired the shipper’s rights and obligations, the choice of court agreement will also be enforceable between the third party and the carrier (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [24], [25] and [30], C‑352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335, [65]; Cf. Article 67(2) of the Rotterdam Rules 2009). There is no separate requirement that the third party must consent in writing to the choice of court agreement. On the other hand, if the third party has not succeeded to any of the rights and obligations of the original contracting parties, the enforceability of the choice of court agreement against it is predicated on actual consent (C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [26]; C‑543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [36]). A new choice of court agreement will need to be concluded between the holder and the carrier as the presentation of the bill of lading would not per se give rise to such an agreement (AG Slynn in Tilly Russ).

Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation did not contain an express provision on the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement. The law of some Member States referred substantive validity of a choice of court agreement to the law of the forum whereas other Member States referred it to the applicable law of the substantive contract (Heidelberg Report [326], 92). However, Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation applies the law of the chosen forum (lex fori prorogatum) including its choice of law rules to the issue of the substantive validity of a choice of court agreement (‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’).

The CJEU recently adjudicated on whether the enforceability of English choice of court agreements in bills of lading against third party holders was governed by the choice of law rule on ‘substantive validity’ in Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. (Joined Cases C‑345/22 and C‑347/22 Maersk A/S v Allianz Seguros y Reaseguros SA and Case C‑346/22 Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros SA v MACS Maritime Carrier Shipping GmbH & Co.) The CJEU held that the new provision in Article 25(1) referring to the law of the Member State chosen in the choice of court agreement including its private international law rules is not applicable. A third-party holder of a bill of lading remains bound by a choice of court agreement, if the law of the forum seised and its private international law rules make provision for this. Notwithstanding, the principle of primacy of EU law precludes Spanish special provisions for the subrogation of a choice of court agreement that undermine Article 25 as interpreted by CJEU case law.

In the three preliminary references under Article 267 TFEU, the enforceability of English choice of court agreements between Spanish insurance companies and maritime transport companies was at issue. The insurance companies exercised the right of subrogation to step into the shoes of the consignees and sued the maritime transport companies for damaged goods. The central issue in the proceedings was whether the choice of court agreements concluded in the original contracts of carriage evidenced by the bills of lading between the carrier and the shipper also bound the insurance companies. The transport companies objected to Spanish jurisdiction based on the English choice of court agreements. The Spanish courts referred questions to the CJEU on the interpretation of choice of court agreements under the Brussels Ia Regulation.

At the outset, the CJEU observed that the Brussels Ia Regulation is applicable to the disputes in the main proceedings as the proceedings were commenced by the insurance companies before 31 December 2020. (Article 67(1)(a), Article 127(1) and (3) of the EU Withdrawal Agreement)

The CJEU proceeded to consider whether Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation must be interpreted as meaning that the enforceability of a choice of court clause against the third-party holder of the bill of lading containing that clause is governed by the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated by that clause. The CJEU characterised the subrogation of a choice of court agreement to a third party as not being subject to the choice of law rule governing substantive validity in Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. (C‑519/19 DelayFix EU:C:2020:933, [40]; C‑543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [25]; C‑366/13 Profit Investment SIM EU:C:2016:282, [23])

The CJEU relied on a distinction between the substantive validity and effects of choice of court agreements (Maersk, [48]; AG Collins in Maersk, [54]-[56]). The latter logically proceeds from the former, but the procedural effects are governed by the autonomous concept of consent as applied to the enforceability of choice of court agreements against third parties developed by CJEU case law.

Although Article 25(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation differs from Article 17 of the Brussels Convention and Article 23(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, the jurisprudence of the CJEU is capable of being applied to the current provision (Maersk, [52]; C‑358/21 Tilman, EU:C:2022:923, [34]; AG Collins in Maersk, [51]-[54]).

The CJEU concluded that where the third-party holder of the bill of lading has succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations in accordance with the national law of the court seised then a choice of court agreement that the third party has not expressly agreed upon can nevertheless be relied upon against it (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [24], [25] and [30], C‑352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide EU:C:2015:335, [65]; Maersk, [51]; Cf. Article 67(2) of the Rotterdam Rules 2009).

In this case, there is no distinct requirement that the third party must consent in writing to the choice of court agreement. The third party cannot extricate itself from the mandatory jurisdiction as ‘acquisition of the bill of lading could not confer upon the third party more rights than those attaching to the shipper under it’ (C 71/83 Tilly Russ EU:C:1984:217, [25]; C-159/97 Castelletti EU:C:1999:142, [41]; C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [25]; Maersk, [62]). Conversely, where the relevant national law does not provide for such a relationship of substitution, that court must ascertain whether that third party has expressly agreed to the choice of court clause (C‑387/98 Coreck EU:C:2000:606, [26]; C‑543/10 Refcomp EU:C:2013:62, [36]; Maersk, [51]).

According to Spanish law, a third-party to a bill of lading has vested in it all rights and obligations of the original contract of carriage but the choice of court agreement is only enforceable if it has been negotiated individually and separately with the third party. The CJEU held that such a provision would undermine Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation as interpreted by the CJEU case law (Maersk, [60]; AG Collins in Maersk, [61]). As per the principle of primacy of EU law, the national court has been instructed to interpret Spanish law to the greatest extent possible, in conformity with the Brussels Ia Regulation (Maersk, [63]; C‑205/20 Bezirkshauptmannschaft Hartberg-Fürstenfeld (Direct effect) EU:C:2022:168) and if no such interpretation is possible, to disapply the national rule [65].

The choice of law rule in Article 25(1) is not an innovation without utility. A broad interpretation of the concept of substantive validity would encroach upon the autonomous concept of consent developed by CJEU case law yet it could avoid the need for a harmonised EU substantive contract law approach to the enforceability of choice of court agreements against third parties. The CJEU in its decision arrived at a solution that upheld the choice of court agreement by the predictable application of its established case law without disturbing the status quo. In practical terms, the application of the choice of law rule in Article 25(1) would have led to a similar outcome. However, the unnecessary displacement of the CJEU’s interpretative authorities on the matter would have increased litigation risk in multi-state transactions.

By distinguishing substantive validity from the effects of choice of court agreements, the CJEU does not extrapolate the choice of law rule on substantive validity to issues of contractual enforceability that are extrinsic to the consent or capacity of the original contracting parties. On balance, a departure from the legal certainty provided by the extant CJEU jurisprudence was not justified. It should be observed that post-Brexit, there has been a resurgence of English anti-suit injunctions in circumstances such as these where proceedings in breach of English dispute resolution agreements are commenced in EU Member State courts.

Mukarrum.

 

The author of this post is Helga Luku, a PhD researcher at the University of Antwerp. In his opinion of 7 May 2024 in C-4/23, Mirin, Advocate General (AG) Richard De la Tour asserted that the refusal of the recognition in one Member State of a change of gender obtained in another Member State by […]