Droit international général

The University of Udine, in Italy, will host on 16 and 17 September an on-line conference under the title European Union and Third Countries: Issues on Jurisdiction and Recognition of Foreign Judgments.

Some of the presentations will be in English, others in Italian.

Speakers include Elisabetta Bergamini (University of Udine), Francesco Deana (University of Udine), Martin Gebauer (Eberhard Karls Universität Tübingen), Peter Kindler (LMU Munich), Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. of Macerata), Paolo Mengozzi (former Advocate General at the CJEU), Luca Penasa (University of Udine), Marcello Stella (University of Naples “Federico II”), Faidon Varesis (University of Oxford / Ethnikon kai Kapodistriakon Panepistimion Athinon) and Wolfgang Wurmnest (University of Augsburg).

The detailed programme and the registration form are available here.

This post was contributed by Vincent Richard, who practices with Wurth Kinsch Olinger in Luxembourg.

On 9 September 2021, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in cases C-208/20 and C-256/20 Toplofikatsia Sofia e.a. on applying the Evidence and the Brussels I bis Regulations when the domicile of the defendant is unknown. Confronted once again with the recurring issue of defendants who moved away without leaving an address, the CJEU confirms that EU law is of no help at present.

The district court of Sofia submitted two preliminary rulings in May and June 2020 related to four separate but similar cases dealing with classic debt recovery procedures. The first one is a civil claim aimed at recovering debts from an energy supply contract. The three others are payment order procedures.

In all cases, the court were not able serve the judicial documents to the debtors because they were not residing at the addresses they had previously indicated on the Bulgarian population register. When officers of the court tried to serve the statement of claim or the payment orders, they were informed by neighbours, relatives or building managers that the debtors did not reside at the address any longer and lived in France or Germany.

Under national Bulgarian law, when defendants cannot be found, Bulgarian courts are obliged to conduct further research in population and employer registers. None of these registers allow a Bulgarian citizen to register a specific address abroad. Therefore, the court is unable to reach Bulgarian citizens who have exercised their right to free movement and compel them to appear before it. Moreover, Bulgarian law draws severe consequences from registration in the population register. The defendant is deemed domiciled at the registered address except if the court receives direct evidence that his habitual residence is abroad. Indirect evidence such as information provided by neighbours or relatives is insufficient to establish such a habitual residence. Consequently, the court is competent to issue an order for payment that may become res judicata in the absence of opposition as long as the order is served to any person having the addressee’s registered address.

In doubt regarding the compatibility of these harsh consequences with European law, the district court of Sofia asked several questions to the CJEU.

In its first question, the Bulgarian court essentially asks whether it should not be obliged under European law to conduct the same kind of investigation into the debtor’s actual residence as that which it is obliged to conduct if the debtor is domiciled in Bulgaria. The question is surprisingly based not only on the right to freedom of movement (Article 20(2) TFEU) read in conjunction with the right to a fair trial (Article 47 of the Charter), the principle of non-discrimination and the principle of equivalence but also on article 1 of the Evidence Regulation.

Regarding this last instrument, the answer of the court is quite logical. The CJEU declares that seeking the address of a person whom a judicial decision is to be served does not constitute taking evidence within the meaning of Article 1(1)(a) of the Evidence Regulation, which is therefore not applicable to the problem at hand.

However, the CJEU’s answer to the first part of the question is a rather puzzling. The court declares that “it is in no way apparent” from the order for reference that the disputes have any connecting factor with the aforementioned provisions. It declares the first question inadmissible. In other words, for the CJEU, the fact that a procedural rule applies differently to Bulgarian citizens habitually resident in Bulgaria and Bulgarian citizens habitually resident in another Member State, to the detriment of the latter, has no link with the freedom of movement, the right to a fair trial, the principle of non-discrimination or the principle of equivalence. One may admit that the question is not straightforward, but such an answer by the CJEU shows a lack of imagination and cooperation that is somewhat worrying.

The answer is all the more disappointing that it was given only a few months after the publication of the recast of the Service Regulation that will apply from 1 July 2022.  These cases constitute perfect examples of the kind of situation that the new Article 7 of Regulation 2020/1784 aims to address. It will oblige Member States to assist in determining the address of a person to be served with legal documents. The scope of application of the Regulation has been changed accordingly so that article 7 is applicable when the defendant’s address is unknown. In the present cases, article 7 would provide a clearly defined avenue for the Bulgarian court to ask the French and the German authorities about the defendants’ whereabouts.

The other questions of the Bulgarian court concerned Article 5(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, and they aimed to question the formalistic approach adopted by Bulgarian law regarding debtor’s domicile in payment order procedures. From the preliminary ruling, it seems that a defendant is deemed to be domiciled in Bulgaria if he is registered there except if there is clear and positive evidence that his habitual residence is situated abroad. This evidence may only be submitted by the claimant because the court may not investigate this point. The Bulgarian court was thus unsure that it might declare itself competent under the Brussels I bis Regulation based on this interpretation of the notion of domicile even though the concept of domicile is governed by national law according to article 62 of the Regulation.

The Court of Justice remains stoic and states that there is no need to answer the question because the Bulgarian court has already issued the payment orders. It had therefore necessarily recognised that it had jurisdiction before issuing them. Regarding the declaration of enforceability or the annulment of the payment orders, the CJEU considers that this also has no connection with Article 5(1) of Regulation 1215/2012, which does not deal with the conditions under which judicial decisions become enforceable. The fact that jurisdiction is only based on prima facie evidence or that the court could probably annul a payment order if it realises that it was not competent to issue it in the first place is never discussed. There is little doubt that the Bulgarian court was expecting a more constructive answer.

Flowers & Ors v Centro Medico Salus Baleares SL & Anor [2021] EWHC 2437 (QB) is a case packed with jurisdictional complication under Brussels Ia. In early February 2020, Mrs Yvonne Flowers, then 67 years of age, was admitted on an emergency basis to a private hospital facility in Benidorm, Spain, with significant back discomfort and pain arising from spinal disc herniation. Nine days later she died in the same hospital from multiple organ failure having contracted sepsis. T

The principal issues at stake concern the level of proof required for a jurisdictional challenge; determination of domicile; the existence of a consumer contract and who can all avail themselves of the consequential jurisdictional rules; and when a matter ‘relates to’ insurance’.

Starting with the latter, Wood J stayed judgment on much of the issues until the CJEU will have ruled in C-708/20 Betty Tattersall,  on which James Beeton reports here and which engages similar issues as CJEU Cole, settled before judgment, and Hutchinson. Betty Tattersall will be a crucial judgment.

The level of proof for jurisdictional challenges was discussed at an extraordinary length in Brownlie, and the SC’s ruling is applied here as detailed in the judgment.

The claimants’ domicile is not ordinarily relevant under BIa but it is for the consumer and insurance title and its determination is subject to national law. Seeing as the judge finds a good arguable case that domicile is indeed established in England, no consideration of Spanish domicile rules is necessary.

The ‘newer’ elements of the case are first of all the existence of a consumer contract. There are 3 issues [67]: (i) Was there a contract between the late Mrs Flowers and Centro Medico? (ii) If there was, was it a consumer contract within the meaning of section 4 BIa? (iii) Does the Claimant’s claim against Centro Medico fall outside the scope of the consumer contracts section because it has not been brought by the “consumer” within the meaning of the section?

Ia Committeri is relied on and the judge has little hesitation [115] to find the existence of a contract. (Much about that has been written in German scholarship in the specific area of medical services).

Surprisingly though, the question whether there is a contract which meets with the A17 requirements is brushed over when it comes to the question whether the hospital directs its activities to England and Wales, which the court established as the relevant  domicile. Particularly in the context of emergency care, this does not seem to be a given.

The judge does enquire as to whether the claim which can no longer be pursued because the contracting (and thus weaker) party is now deceased, can be picked up by heirs in the same jurisdictional gateway and pursued on the basis of the domicile of either the deceased or the heirs. Schrems and KABEG are discussed, however unlike the first instance judge in Bonnie Lackey, Justice Wood [126] adopts a much less wide approach. There must be scope for a lot more discussion on this, for the scenario in Bonnie Lackey, of which I was critical, is quite different from that of the heirs who step in the  litigation shoes of the deceased.

Geert.

EU Private international law, 3rd ed. 2021, big chunks of Chapter 2.

Flowers v CMS
Jurisdiction, BIa, 'domicile', consumer section (whether there was consumer contract, and who needs to bring the claim), matters 'relating to' insurance
Latter element stayed pending CJEU Betty Tattersall. Other gateways prima facie acceptedhttps://t.co/K3YmPtjYDY

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) September 3, 2021

On 23 and 24 September 2021, the GLaw Research Network (Maastricht University) will host an “hybrid” workshop on Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection: The National Courts’ perspective.

This will be the second part of a broader research on effective judicial protection in the EU legal order. The first part focused on the Court of Justice’s perspective and led to an online workshop last April (reported here). The second workshop will adopt a comparative law approach within the national legal orders of the EU Member States.

The principle of effective judicial protection is one of the cornerstones of the EU legal order. Mentioned by the Court of Justice for the first time in the 1980s, and originally emanating from Articles 6 and 13 ECHR, this principle had a pivotal role in ensuring access to adequate remedies to protect the rights deriving from Union law. Since its inception, this principle was linked also to the protection of the rule of law, one of the founding values of the EU. Effective judicial protection is therefore one of the facets of the EU constitutional identity. Following the entry into force of Lisbon Treaty, this principle has been constitutionalised in Article 19 TEU and Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, the latter laying down the right to an effective remedy and to a fair trial. Currently, Article 47 of the EU Charter is the most invoked EU Charter provision before national and EU courts.

The workshop will offer a comparative overview of the national case law applying Article 47 Charter and the principle of effective judicial protection. The speakers will collectively evaluate the systemic impact of Article 47, its interplay with other domestic and European provisions guaranteeing effective judicial protection, as well as the level of convergence (or divergence) in the national courts’ approaches.

The papers presented at the workshop will be included in the second volume of the book project ‘Article 47 of the EU Charter and effective judicial protection’ led by Mariolina Eliantonio, Giulia Gentile and Matteo Bonelli, all members of the GLaw-Net Research Network.

The full program is available here and registration is open here.

This Thursday, the Court of Justice delivered its judgment in the case UM, C-277/20, where it clarifies whether a donation mortis causa may fall within the scope of the notion of “agreement as to succession” in the sense of the Succession Regulation.

The request for a preliminary ruling in this case arises out of proceedings in Austria on the inscription in the land registry of the property right to real estate situated in that Member State. The requested inscription is supposed to be made on the basis of a contract of donation mortis causa in respect to that real estate, entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany. Prior to the request for the inscription, the succession proceedings have been opened before a German court for the last place of residence of the donor.

Before the Austrian courts, the request for the inscription of the propriety right have been already rejected by two instances and ultimately the Oberster Gerichtshof referred to the Court the preliminary questions that read as follows:

Is Article 3(1)(b) of [the Succession Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that a contract of donation mortis causa entered into between two German nationals habitually resident in Germany in respect of real estate located in Austria, granting the donee a right having the character of an obligation against the estate to registration of his title after the donor’s death pursuant to that contract and the donor’s death certificate, that is without the intervention of the probate court, is an agreement as to succession within the meaning of that provision?

If the answer to the above question is in the affirmative: Is Article 83(2) of [The Succession Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that it also regulates the effect of a choice of applicable law made before 17 August 2015 for a contract of donation mortis causa that is to be qualified as an agreement as to succession within the meaning of Article 3(1)(b) of [the Succession Regulation]?

In his Opinion presented this July, AG Richard de la Tour considered that Article 3(1)(b) of the Succession Regulation must be interpreted to the effect that the notion of “agreement as to succession” includes donation contracts inter vivos, by which, in favor of the donee, the transfer of the ownership of one or several assets even only partially accounting for the hereditary estate of the donor does not take place until the death of the donor.

In its judgments, the Court also pronounces itself in favour of the interpretation according to which a contract of donation mortis causa is to be qualified as an “agreement as to succession”.

The reasoning of the Court commences with the juxtaposition of exclusion from the scope of the application of the Succession Regulation provided for in its Article 1(2)(g) [“shall be excluded (…) property rights (…) created or transferred otherwise than by succession, for instance by way of gifts”], on the one hand, and definition of the notion of “agreement as to succession” in the sense of Article 3(1)(b) of the Succession Regulation [“an agreement resulting from mutual wills, which, with or without consideration, creates, modifies or terminates rights to the future estate or estates (…)], on the other hand (paragraph 27).

The Court stresses then the importance of autonomous and uniform interpretation of the notions of the Succession Regulation (paragraph 29) and contends that the very wording of the definition of the notion of “agreement as to succession” indicates that this notion covers also transfers relating to future estates (paragraph 30).

By contrast, the second preliminary question is answered in the negative. For the Court, as nothing indicates that a choice of law applicable have been made to succession as a whole, Article 83(2) of the Succession Regulation is not applicable to the case at hand. As such, the choice made solely with regards to the agreement as to succession is not governed by Article 83(2) (paragraph 39).

The judgment can be found here (in German and French so far).

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe observes in his Opinion presented today in the case HRVATSKE ŠUME, C-242/20, the Court of Justice has already faced requests for a preliminary ruling where arose a question on qualification of an action for unjust enrichment for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation. He notes that no conclusive finding has been made so far as to its qualification as a “matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” in the sense of Article 5(3) of the Regulation (point 4). By contrast, the present case is supposed to create an opportunity to provide a definitive conclusion to the jurisprudential saga in question.

It is noteworthy that the case itself presents a nuance: the unjust enrichment is said to have occurred in enforcement proceedings which were carried out, although they should not have been, and now reimbursement of the amount which was unjustly levied in enforcement proceeding is being sought before the Croatian courts. The nuance is addressed in the second preliminary question.

At the request of the Court, the Opinion does, however, elaborate only on the first preliminary question that reads as follows:

Do actions for recovery of sums unduly paid by way of unjust enrichment fall within the basic jurisdiction established in the [Brussels I Regulation] in respect of “quasi-delicts” since Article 5(3) thereof provides inter alia: “A person domiciled in a Member State may, in another Member State, be sued … in matters relating to … quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”?

In his Opinion, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe proposes to take a step back and view the preliminary question in a broader perspective. For him, it is necessary to determine, in the first place, whether an action for unjust enrichment falls within the scope of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and, only in the negative, in the second place, whether it fall within the scope of Article 5(3) of the Regulation (point 26). He established therefore an order of preference when it comes to the contract/tort distinction under the Regulation.

Having adopted that approach, he concludes that an action for unjust enrichment is not a “matter relating to a contract” in the sense of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, save where it is closely connected with a preexisting (or alleged to exist) contractual relationship (points 44-52). Nor it is a “matter relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict” within the meaning of Article 5(3) of the Regulation (point 79).

The Opinion contains an in-depth discussion on the parallels with the Rome I/Rome II Regulations and, in this regard, the outcome of the reasoning followed by AG Saugmandsgaard Øe may bring to mind the one that AG Bobek proposed in the context of actio pauliana in his Opinion delivered in the case Feniks, C-337/17.

The Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe is available here (no English version so far).

At least from the perspective of private international law, this Thursday can easily go down in history as one of the busiest days in the Court of Justice agenda. Its complete outline can be found here, due to courtesy of Marta Requejo Isidro. Stay tuned also for our next updates on the cases of this morning.

The present post concerns the Opinion presented by AG Rantos in the case TOTO, C-581/20. At the request of the Court, the analysis provided for in the Opinion is limited to the second preliminary question on the interpretation of Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The second question reads as follows:

After the right to make an application for provisional/protective measures has been exercised and the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already ruled on that application, is the court seised of an application for interim relief on the same basis and under Article 35 of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be regarded as not having jurisdiction from the point at which evidence is produced that the court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has given a ruling on that application?

In essence, the question seeks to establish whether a Bulgarian court not having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter is precluded from pronouncing provisional/protective measures under Article 35 of the Brussels I bis Regulation in a situation where a Polish court having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter has already given a ruling on an application for identical provisional/protective measures and rejected the application.

In brief, AG Rantos argues that in a situation described in the preliminary question the court not having jurisdiction as to the substance of the matter should not pronounce the provisional/protective measures.

In general terms, the Opinion contends that the rules on litispendence provided for in Article 29 of the Brussels I bis Regulation do apply in the context of proceedings for provisional/protective measures. Such finding of a general nature seems to suggest that the court subsequently seized under Article 35 of the Regulation with an identical application for provisional/protective measures should not give a ruling on that application (point 50).

The Opinion then goes on to elaborate on the more specific elements of the case at hand which seemed to inspire the second preliminary question: firstly, the impact of the choice of court clause in favour of the Polish courts on the applicability of Article 35 of the Regulation (in other terms: whether the Polish courts have exclusive jurisdiction also as to the provisional/protective measures); secondly, the actual connection between the measures sought and the territory of Bulgaria (the question being left open for the referring court to asses, point 74); thirdly, the relevance, before the Bulgarian court, of the Polish court decision refusing the provisional/protective measures (point 54).

Concerning the last element, AG Rantos observes that it is not clear whether the ruling of a Polish court refusing to grant provisional/protective measures is final or not (point 76). Thus, he elaborates on these two different hypothesis. In essence, according to the Opinion, the court subsequently seized should not give ruling on the application for provisional/protective measures [either because in a mutual trust oriented manner it should refrain from doing so because such ruling would be irreconcilable with a previous definitive ruling handed down by a Polish court (point 79) or – in the absence of such definitive ruling – because the rules on litispendence require the court subsequently seized to decline jurisdiction in favour of court previously seized (point 88)].

The Opinion is available here (no English version so far).

On Friday 17 September 2021, the Institute for Comparative Law, Conflict of Laws and International Business Law of Heidelberg University (Prof. Dr. Dr. h.c. Thomas Pfeiffer) will host the EFFORTS German Exchange Seminar. This half-day online conference is held within the framework of the project “EFFORTS – Towards more effective enforcement of claims in civil and commercial matters within the EU”, funded by the European Commission and conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, Heidelberg University, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The program for the German Exchange Seminar is available here (PDF, in German). Participation is free of charge. Participants are kindly requested to pre-register by sending an email to sekretariat.pfeiffer@ipr.uni-heidelberg.de.

The EFFORTS-project tackles in particular the European Enforcement Order Regulation, the European Payment Order Regulation, the European Small Claims Regulations and the European Account Preservation Order Regulation. Ultimately, it aims to assess the functioning and the effectiveness of cross-border enforcement within the EU. More information on EFFORTS and its research outputs can be found on the project website and in various newsletters previously posted on conflictoflaws.net here, here, and here.

This project was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020). The content of this study represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union

The Faculty of Law at Ozyegin University is organizing its first online Private International Law Symposium on the theme of “Current Issues in Private International Law – MENA & EU”.

The symposium aims to bring together MENA and EU scholars working in the field of private international law field. The symposium is to be held on 19 November 2021.

The organizers are pleased to invite interested persons to submit abstracts of papers relating to the themes of the symposium by 20 September 2021.

All necessary details about the event can be found here: https://events.ozyegin.edu.tr/tr?myozu=1#/0/detail/17152/current-issues-in-private-international-law-mena-eu-call-for-papers

Any inquiries should be directed to Mrs. Jocelyne Alayan at jocelyne.alayan@ozyegin.edu.trseminar_pil@ub.ac.id.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law is seeking at least three interns to work on the following Conventions and projects during the first half of 2022:

• the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention and the 2007 Child Support Convention and Protocol
• the 1993 Intercountry Adoption Convention , and the Parentage / Surrogacy Project
• the 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the 1996 Child Protection Convention, the Family Agreements Involving Children Project
• the 1961 Form of Wills Convention and the 1970 Divorce Convention
• the 1961 Apostille Convention
• the Tourists and Visitors (Online Dispute Resolution) Project
• the 1985 Trusts Convention, the 2006 Securities Convention and the Digital Economy (inc. DLT) Project
• the 2005 Choice of Court Convention, the 2019 Judgments Convention, the Jurisdiction Project, the 2015 Choice of Law Principles, the 1965 Service Convention, the 1970 Evidence Convention and the 1980 Access to Justice Convention.

Applications will be accepted until 18:00 hours (CEST) on 24 September 2021.

See here for more details.

On 14 October 2021 an online roundtable will take place devoted to the private international law issues relating to the recognition and enforcement of foreign (mostly US) punitive damages judgments in countries outside of Europe.

The event is organised by the Maastricht University at the initiative of Lotte Meurkens and Cedric Vanleenhove.

An often-heard obstacle [to the recognition of judgments awarding punitive damages] is the public policy-exception. In a number of European countries, for example Italy, Spain and Germany, the supreme courts have rendered decisions on this matter.

Following the decision of the Italian supreme court of 2017, a conference was organised in Milan by the Department of Italian and Supranational Public Law of the University of Milan in 2018. A program of this conference, in which the organizers of this M-EPLI roundtable took part, can be found here. During the conference, the private international law question has been addressed from the perspective of several European countries.

We have decided to broaden this question and look into countries outside of Europe because extensive research into such jurisdictions has not been done yet. In this M-EPLI roundtable we bring together a group of experts who will reflect on the current position of their country (and surrounding countries). The insights gained through this research could be useful for the ongoing debate on the future of punitive damages in Europe.

Speakers include Cedric Vanleenhove (Ghent University / University of Liège), Béligh Elbalti (Osaka University), Wenliang Zhang (Renmin University of China), María Guadalupe Martínez Alles (IE University), Vsevolod Chernyy (Lomonosov Moscow State University) and Lotte Meurkens (Maastricht University).

More information available here.

A short (and late – I am in mopping-up mood it seems) post on the AG’s Opinion in Case C‑124/20 Bank Melli Iran – in which he also cites my former colleague proximus Cédric Ryngaert. Hogan AG’s Opinion addresses the rock and the hard stone, or the devil and the deep blue sea dilemma facing corporations in the light of diverging export laws /sanctions law. May a German bank refuse to do business indeed end business with an Iranian bank, under pressure from US secondary export control laws?

More on the external relations aspects of the case is ia here and of course in the Opinion itself. My interest here lies in part of the Opinion: the AG’s view that an EU undertaking seeking to terminate an otherwise valid contract with an Iranian entity subject to the US sanctions must demonstrate to the  satisfaction of the national court that it did not do so by reason of its desire to comply with those sanctions. It must show other motives, such as ethical reservations about doing business with Iran. These reservations may be documented by a genuinely rolled-out CSR compliance program: (88)

‘In order, however, to establish that the reasons given in respect of any decision to terminate a contract on this ground were in fact sincere, the person referred to in Article 11 of the EU blocking statute in question − in the present case Telekom Deutschland – would need, in my view, to demonstrate that it is actively engaged in a coherent and systematic corporate social-responsibility policy (CSR) which requires them, inter alia, to refuse to deal with any company having links with the Iranian regime.’

CSR programs have been used as carrot ia in Trafigura and as stick ia in Vedanta. The view here is very much the carrot or if one likes, the shield function: CSR policies as a defensive weapon against the rock and hard stone dilemma. That is most interesting for the EU corporations concerned and likely to draw the attention of export sanctions practitioners (both in-house and out) to part of the corporation’s blurb which they may otherwise ignore. Yet it may put too much emphasis on fairly unregulated CSR policy drafting, and compliance issues.

Geert.

The Scientific Committee of the European Association of Private International Law has approved the establishment of a Working Group on a future European Regulation on International Property Law.

The aims of the Working Group will be to exchange information on current legislation and case law in the field of international property law, with a focus on (but not limited to) the EU Member States and to draw up proposals for law reform and codification of international property law both on the level of the EU and on national/international levels.

The Working Group is chaired by Eva-Maria Kieninger.

It is composed of the following members: Janeen Carruthers (University of Glasgow), Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxemburg), Morten Fogt (University of Aarhus), Teemu Juutilainen (University of Turku), Eva-Maria Kieninger (University of Wuerzburg), Teun Struycken (University of Utrecht), Jonathan Schenk (University of Antwerpen), Afonso Patrão (University of Coimbra), and Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo (Madrid)

The Working Group is still considering applications for membership, especially from Eastern European Member States.

The Working Group will include a limited number of Members. Other Members interested in following its progress may join the Consultative Committee of the Working Group.

The Working Group wil report and seek comments from the Consultative Committee at least once a year.

Members intersted in joining the Consultative Committee may contact its chair, Gilles Cuniberti (gilles.cuniberti@uni.lu).

The Working Group will hold its first meeting in Wuerzburg in November 2021.

Further information on the project can be found on the Working Group’s webpage and sought from its chair, Eva-Maria Kienienger (kieninger@jura.uni-wuerzburg.de).

A most late flag on Nestlé & Cargill v John Doe at the US Supreme Court, back in June. I reported on the case here and if you follow Lucas’ thread on the case, there is further interesting and impromptu analysis. Readers of the blog may know I have published on the issue before – search tag ‘ATS’ should give you all cases referred to below.

This case reconfirms the mood viz the Alien Tort Statute,  a popular (if not the only!) vehicle for corporate social responsibility litigation: since Kiobel, the USSC has seriously reigned in the scope of application of the ATS. In Nestlé, it would seem to impose a further squeeze on the ATS jurisdictional gateway. In Apartheid and Jesner Bank, ‘aiding and abetting’ by the US corporate headquarters of culpable conduct by their subsidiaries abroad, seemed to be a burden of proof claimants had to meet in order for the action to be admissible under the ATS. In Nestlé the Court in its current composition (sub III of the majority Opinion) suggests that aiding and abetting in that interpretation risks becoming a court-introduced (hence in its view noli sequi) action in tort.

Sub II, the Court is not at all clear what the jurisdictional hurdle might be, except that it is a very high one: ‘Nearly all the conduct that [claimants] say aided and abetted forced labor—providing training, fertilizer, tools, and cash to overseas farms—occurred in Ivory Coast… allegations of general corporate activity—like decisionmaking—cannot alone establish domestic application of the ATS.’ (Interesting contrast here with the UKSC in ia Vedanta).

Not only could one debate whether this decision represents the intention of the ATS (which, even if one applies it in limited fashion, did historically mean to catch at least in part activities outside of the US). One also immediately sees the most unattractive consequence of this judgment: as long as the dirty work is left for foreign affiliates to carry out overseas, one escapes the reach of ATS. As Lucas points out, it is not clear what kind of headquarter engagement could still trigger a suit under the ATS.

There is little solace in the indication that the Court (both in majority opinion and minority concurrence) accepts that corporations are not as such immune from suit under the ATS (which links to the issues currently discussed in Nevsun Resources).

There will be more attempts to further refine the ATS scope. At the same time one imagines claimants will study in even greater detail than before, the possibility to bring the suit under more recent US federal laws with clear extraterritorial intent, such as in the field of corruption of export controls. As past (but now gone) ATS litigation shows, human rights and /or environmental suit need not necessarily label themselves as such.

Nomen non est omen. It is the end goal of human rights or environmental protection or, say, environmental justice which determines a suit’s character, no matter what prima facie subject matter the suit addresses. If one can advance these causes by suing under the by-laws of the World Philately Federation, say, one should have a good go at it.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 7.

For background to the case see https://t.co/EcFiv6EDgQ https://t.co/gXdWqrR0jB

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 17, 2021

The third issue of the Journal du droit international for 2021 has just been released. It contains two articles and several case notes relating to private international law issues.

In the first article, Guillaume Feld (Avocat, Paris bar) and Guillaume Sauvaget (Associé, PS Consulting) discusse the concept of “dispute boards” as ADR technique in an international context (Les “dispute boards”: originalité, évaluation et perspectives d’un mode alternatif de règlement des différends singulier). 

The English abstract reads:

Original alternative dispute resolution (ADR) technique, dispute boards (known in French as « comités de règlement des différends ») have been conceived in the construction industry in North America in the 1960s-1970s as an empirical answer to the infrastructure projects’ high propensity to disputes and their negative consequences for all involved parties. Initially designed as a permanent body comprising one or more knowledgeable neutrals set up at the project’s inception in order to assist the parties in avoiding and/or overcoming any disagreements and/or disputes which could arise under or in connection the underlying contract, the popularity of dispute boards has grown significantly over the past two decades well beyond the construction industry. Their dual preventive and curative functions as well as their undeniable efficacy explain to the uniqueness of dispute boards which sets them apart from other ADR techniques. While they are not without inconveniencies and risks, dispute boards offer to their users numerous advantages and opportunities which justify their adoption under major international projects in various industries. The purpose of this article is to present : the concept, genesis and development of dispute boards ; their originality, typology and operation ; their advantages and inconveniencies ; their risks and opportunities ; and their possible future.

In the second article, Charlotte Ankaoua (PhD, University of Versailles-St-Quentin-en-Yvelines) analyses the recent caselaw of the CJUE dealing with the ‘Actio Pauliana’ under Brussels I bis Regulation (L’assimilation de l’action paulienne à une action contractuelle selon la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne).

The English abstract reads:

Through two court rulings, the Court of Justice of the European Union rules that the Paulian action is a legal action of a contractual nature within the meaning of Article 7, §1, of the Brussels I bis Regulation, even though the parties are not bound by a freely accepted commitment. The latter thus enshrines the extension of contractual matters undertaken in recent years and which makes the « cause of action » the main criterion of this autonomous concept. While these rulings seem to clarify the Paulian action, a «chameleon » action, the article tends to show that, on the contrary, they can distort it, in particular by undermining the principle of the relative effect of contracts which characterises it.

A full table of contents can be downloaded here.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 9 September 2021 at 5:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 12:00 am (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is Rethinking Private International Law (a look through its sources and methods) and will be presented by Professors Luciana B. Scotti and Candela Villegas (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83622646486?pwd=ZzZwbFJ2R1NLaHFxUGNNUnE0M2FHQT09

Meeting ID: 836 2264 6486

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

On 16 and 17 September 2021 an online course on European Union and Third Countries. Issues on jurisdiction and recognition of foreign judgments will take place as a part of the activities of the European Family Law Module funded by the EU ErasmusPlus programme led by Professor Elisabetta Bergamini of the University of Udine, Italy.

Excellent group of lecturers from different EU Member States will be discussing EU Regulations on jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement when those issues arise in situations connected with third States. The course will offer an overview of different aspects to this issue, having regard to EU rules both on civil and commercial matters and on family and succession matters. The course will be either in Italian or in English. The details of the programme are available in Flyer_E2106_EU_and_Third_Countries.

Participation is free of charge, but registration is required by 13 September here.

This note briefly analyses the recent decision of the Nigerian Supreme Court in BCE Consulting Engineers v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[1]on the issue of a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria having the capacity to sue in Nigeria.

Generally, Section 78 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020 requires that a foreign company must be registered in Nigeria before it can carry on business in Nigeria. This provision is a carryover of the former Section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 1990, which contains a similar provision.

However, Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020, makes express provisions for a foreign company to sue and be sued in its corporate name or that of its agent (despite the fact that it is not a registered or incorporated company in Nigeria for the purpose of carrying on business (under Section 78). The same provision previously enacted in Section 60(b) of the Company and Allied Matters Act 1990. Section 60(b) of the Company and Allied Matters Act 1990 has been applied by Nigerian courts in some cases prior to the enactment of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.

In Companhia Brasileira De Infraestrututira (INFAZ) v Companhia Brasileira De Entrepostos E Commercio (COBEC) (Nig) Ltd,[2] the plaintiff-appellant was a company allegedly registered in accordance with Brazilian law. The plaintiff-appellant was also a shareholder with some Nigerian persons, which constituted the defendant-respondent company. There was a change in the name of the plaintiff-appellant to Companhia Brasileira De Infraestutura Fazendaria, which was allegedly in accordance with Brazilian law. The plaintiff-appellant prayed for the winding-up of the defendant-respondent company. The application was dismissed by the trial court and the appeal to the Court of Appeal was dismissed as well.  One of the issues for consideration was whether the plaintiff-appellant was competent to sue and be sued in Nigeria.

The Court of Appeal held that by virtue of Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990, a foreign company not registered in Nigeria can sue and be sued in Nigerian courts provided that said foreign company was duly incorporated according to the laws of a foreign state recognised in Nigeria. But, if there is a change in the name of that foreign company, evidence of compliance with the law of the land where it was incorporated must be given. In the instant case, the Court of Appeal held that there was no material evidence placed before the court to establish the change of name of the plaintiff-appellant company, and the resolution for change of name in Brazil that was provided before the court was deemed insufficient.[3]

In Edicomsa International Inc and Associates v CITEC International Estates Ltd,[4] the plaintiff-appellant was a foreign company incorporated in the United States of America. However, it was not registered in Nigeria. The plaintiff-appellant was engaged by the defendant-respondent to provide some services. Subsequently, there was a disagreement between the parties on payments due to the plaintiff-appellant, which led to the action before the court. The defendant-respondent, inter alia, challenged the jurisdiction of the trial court on the basis that the plaintiff-appellant was not registered in Nigeria. The trial court upheld the submission of the defendant-respondent. The plaintiff-appellant appealed to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously allowed the appeal. The majority of the Court of Appeal rightly applied Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 to the effect that the plaintiff-appellant, though not registered in Nigeria, could sue in Nigeria.[5]

In the recent case of BCE Consulting Engineers v Nigerian National Petroleum Corporation[6] the Nigerian Supreme Court did not consider Section 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 2020), though its final decision was correct. In that case, the claimant/1st appellant claimed that it entered into a consultancy service agreement with the defendant/respondent which the latter unlawfully terminated. The plaintiff/1st appellant therefore filed an action via originating summons in the Federal High Court, Lagos State Judicial Division, seeking declaratory reliefs to that effect. It further claimed the total value of outstanding claims on invoices submitted by it, special and general damages. One of the issues canvassed at the Supreme Court was whether the Court of Appeal was right when it held that the contract entered into by the claimant-1st appellant a foreign company without incorporation in Nigeria was illegal and unenforceable? The Supreme Court Justices unanimously agreed with Peter-Odilli JSC who held as follows in her leading judgment:

“I agree with learned counsel for the appellants that section 54 of the Companies and Allied Matters Act [Cap C20 LFN 2004][7] does not apply to the facts of this case because the situation before the court in this case is one of a firm registered in Nigeria and entering into contract with the respondent but subsequently to the execution of the contract incorporating itself outside Nigeria as a limited liability company”.[8]

It is submitted that the Supreme Court should also have had regard to Article 60(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act 1990 (now Section 84(b) of the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020) in holding that assuming the claimant-1st appellant was a foreign company that was not registered in Nigeria, it was capable of maintaining an action in Nigeria. This would have put to doubt any question as to the capacity of a foreign company that is not registered in Nigeria to sue or be sued in Nigeria. It would also have made the Supreme Court’s decision exhaustive in this regard.

[1] (2021) All FWLR (Pt. 1083)  359.

[2](2004) 13 NWLR 376.

[3]Companhia Brasileira De Infraestrututira v Cobec (Nig) Ltd (2004) 13 NWLR 376, 391, 395 (Aderemi JCA, as he then was) (overturned on another point in INFAZ v COBEC (Nig) Ltd (2018) 12 NWLR 127). See also Watanmal (Singapore) Pte Ltd v. Liz Olofin and Company Plc (1997) LPELR-6224(CA) 13 (Musdapher JCA as he then was); NU Metro Retail (Nig) Ltd v. Tradex S.R.L & Anotherr (2017) LPELR-42329(CA) 41-2 (Garba JCA as he then was).

[4](2006) 4 NWLR 114.

[5]Edicomsa International Inc and Associates v CITEC International Estates Ltd (2006) 4 NWLR 114, 125-26 (Rhodes-Vivour JCA, as he then was), 130 (Omage JCA).  See also B.C.N.N. Ltd. v. Backbone Tech. Net. Inc.  (2015) 14 NWLR (Pt. 1480) 511. Cf.  AG Butler (Nig) (Ltd) v The Sanko Steamship Co. Ltd (2020) LPELR -51141 (CA). Cf. Hung & Ors v. EC Investment Co. (Nig) Ltd (2016) LPELR -42125 (CA) (Tur JCA dissenting).

[6] (2021) All FWLR (Pt. 1083)  359

[7] “Subject to sections 56 to 59 of this Act, every foreign company which before or after the commencement of this Act was incorporated outside Nigeria, and having the intention of carrying on business in Nigeria, shall take all steps necessary to obtain incorporation as a separate entity in Nigeria for that purpose, but until so incorporated, the foreign company shall not carry on business in Nigeria or exercise any of the powers of a registered company and shall not have a place of business or an address for service of documents or processes in Nigeria for any purpose other than receipt of notices and other documents, as matters preliminary to incorporation under this Act.” This provision is now contained in Section 78 of the the Companies and Allied Matters Act, 2020.

[8] ibid, 396.

Ilaria Pretelli (Swiss Institute of Comparative Law; University of Urbino) has posted Three Patterns, One Law – Plea for a Reinterpretation of the Hague Child Abduction Convention to Protect Children from Exposure to Sexism, Mysogyny and Violence against Women on SSRN.

The abstract reads:

The 1980 Hague Convention must be read today in light of the 2011 Istanbul Convention that brings to full light that violence against women is a world-wide phenomenon, and “one of the most serious forms of gender-based violations of human rights in Europe that is still shrouded in silence”. The perspective proposed by this paper allows to break the silence and solve the conundrum of the dilemma on how the return mechanism should operate in practice, in order to ensure full compliance with the best interests of the child. Sexism, misogyny and violence against women may be the premise of child abductions carried out by taking fathers, permeated with a sexist culture, but also by taking mothers fleeing violence. The solution proposed here consists in re-establishing the original distinction of the 1980 Convention, between illicit transfers of a child’s residence and child abductions in the true sense.

The Hague Academy of International Law has recently published its programmes for the Summer Courses in 2022. The part on public international law will take place from 11 to 29 July 2022, the part on private international law will follow from 1 to 19 August 2022.

This latter part will start with an inaugural lecture by Dominique Hascher, the general course will be given by Louis d’Avout, and special courses will be offered by Marco Frigessi di Rattalma, João Bosco Lee, Ulla Liukkunen, Kermit Roosevelt III, Tiong Min Yeo, and Arnaud Nuyts – a truly impressive global gathering of expertise – highly recommended! Opening of the registration period: November 1st, 2021. Further information can be found here.

A special feature of the 2022 programme will be a conference in memoriam of Emmanuel Gaillard who passed away last year, far too early (for a memorial note on CoL by Ralf Michaels see here). Contributors will be Yas Banifatemi, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo, Dominique Hascher, Horatia Muir Watt, Luca Radicati di Brozolo.

More and more participants decide to take part in both parts, which of course is the best of all choices, as the two branches of international law have much in common and the lines more and more blur (again). In addition, most of the global challenges of our time can only be dealt with adequately if tackled in an integrated approach. Therefore, it is with good reason that, following to the two parts on public and private international law courses, the Academy’s Centre for Studies and Research again addresses such a cross-over topic in its programme from 22 August to 9 September 2022: Climate Change and the Testing of International Law. For more information see here.