Droit international général

Matthias Lehmann (University of Vienna) has posted National Blockchain Laws as a Threat to Capital Markets Integration on SSRN. The paper, which appeared in the European Banking Institute Working Paper Series 2021, analyses the legislation adopted by a number of countries in Europe and the US for dealing with crypto assets and distributed ledger technology for investment purposes, the risks of fragmentation and divergent rules, and regional solutions towards a harmonised approach.

The abstract reads as follows:

Various states have started providing private law frameworks for blockchain transfers and crypto assets. The first acts have been adopted by France and Liechtenstein, while a commission of the British government sees no difficulties in extending property protection under the Common law to crypto assets. In the US, an amendment to the Uniform Commercial Code has been suggested, which has not stopped some States going their own, different way. The aim in all cases is to promote the use of modern distributed ledger technology and enhance investor protection. While these initiatives will increase legal certainty, they differ significantly. This has an important downside: there is a strong risk that the blockchain will be made subject to diverging legal rules. Similar to the world of intermediated securities, various national laws will need to be consulted to determine the rights and privileges of investors. This may increase transaction costs, thwart interoperability and produce thorny conflict-of-laws problems. Markets risk being fragmented into national segments, with an inevitable diminution of their depth and liquidity. As a remedy, this article suggests developing uniform rules for the blockchain. Before national legislators and judges once again divide the world through idiosyncratic rules, the private law of crypto assets should be harmonised to the highest degree possible. Uniform rules should ideally be forged at the global level, by fora like the International Institute for the Unification of Private Law (UNIDROIT), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the Hague Conference on Private International Law. In the absence of world-wide rules, uniformisation of private law should take place at the regional level, for instance by the European Union. The article makes specific suggestions as to how this can be achieved and what the content of those rules should be.

On Thursday, 15 July from 15.30-17.30 CET the seminar European Civil Justice in Transition: Past, Present & Future will take place, organized by Erasmus School of Law in the context of the ERC project Building EU Civil Justice. You can register here.

In this last seminar of a series of six, key experts on European civil justice will share their views on current and future issues, including digitisation, collective redress, the Brussels I-bis reform, private and public justice, the funding of civil justice and the role of civil justice in today’s society.

Thursday, 15 July (15.30-17.30 CET) – Program

15.15 Waiting room opens

15.30 Opening

15.35-15.45 Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University)

Introduction – Past, present and future: Highlights of European civil justice

15.45-16.00 Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg )

Reforming the Brussels Ibis Regulation in January 2022 – taking up the next reform step

16.00-16.15 John Sorabji (University College London; Barrister, 9 St John Street)

Digitisation and the development of Integrated Dispute Resolution

16.15-16.30 Eva Storskrubb (Uppsala University/Erasmus University Rotterdam)

Trust and Quality in Civil Justice

16.30-16.45 Alan Uzelac (University of Zagreb)

It’s better to burn out than to fade away: is civil justice here to stay?

16.45-17.30 Comments & discussion (moderated by Xandra Kramer and Alexandre Biard, Erasmus University Rotterdam)

 

On 20 July 2021, the University of Milan will host the (on-line) Annual Conference of the EU-funded project Jean Monnet Module on Multilevel, Multiparty and Multisector Cross-Border Litigation in Europe.

This year’s topic, Incentives and Challenges to Transnational Access to Justice, will be discussed in the framework of two roundtables concerning, respectively, Third-party Funding in International Dispute Resolution and E-Justice in International Dispute Resolution.

The complete programme is available here. Registrations are open until 15 July 2021, through this form.

Eastern Pacific Chartering Inc v Pola Maritime Ltd [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm) is a highly unusual case which shows that dormant Conventions can be awoken from their slumber.  I merely dabble in EU external relations law, I am no expert in it. The application of that law in the context of private international law is an issue I have tasked one or two students with – let’s just say they find it challenging.

On the specific issue at hand, parties agree that consequential to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 (Gibraltar) Order 1997, matters of jurisdiction between the E&W Courts and the Supreme Court of Gibraltar are governed by the Brussels Convention 1968 and that this remains the case notwithstanding Brexit. That core issue of external relations law pre and post Brexit is therefore not sub judice. One imagines that had it been, it could have led to extensive to and fro, among others within the context of the UK having revoked the 1968 Convention per the jurisdiction and Judgments Exit Regulations SI 2019/479, and of the Withdrawal Agreement.

In July 2020, claimant had a ship arrested in Gibraltar, with the purpose to serve as security for claims under a charterparty between both, claims that were to be brought in London, consistently with an exclusive jurisdiction clause in the charterparty. Roberston DJ classifies that action as one for provisional measures under Article 24 Convention (35 of the Brussels Ia Regulation).  The legality of that arrest (which ended upon claimant releasing it) continues to be disputed (ia viz the actual ownership of the ship).

Claimant (not domiciled in a 1968 Convention Contracting State) now sues  in E&W (pursuant to the choice of court) Defendant (domiciled at Cyprus) for outstanding monies. In current proceedings it applies to dismiss and strike out that part of the Defendant’s counterclaim at the E&W courts which seeks to advance claims in tort based on the alleged wrongful Gibraltar arrest.  In essence claimant submits that the High Court court has no jurisdiction to try the Defendant’s tort claims and should decline jurisdiction in favour of the Supreme Court of Gibraltar.

After a swipe [18 ff] at both parties having engaged, without court approval, experts on Gibraltarian law (which, she holds, bear no relevance for the jurisdictional issues anyways), Roberston DJ proceeds to discuss the lis pendens issue.

Defendant’s primary case is that, on the facts of this case, Article 17 Convention (A25 BIa) applies to confer jurisdiction, because the exclusive jurisdiction clause is broad enough to cover the tort claims. The Defendant’s fallback position is that, if that is wrong, the Court nevertheless has jurisdiction in respect of its counterclaims, not on the basis of A5(3) Convention (the Claimant (defendant on the counterclaim) not being domiciled in a Convention State) either because that necessarily follows from the Claimant’s decision to litigate its own claims here, or because Claimant has taken steps since service of the Defence and Counterclaim which waived any right to object to jurisdiction in respect of the counterclaims.

The discussion revolves around the contractual and statutory interpretation of the action radius of choice of court. This also involves the classic issue of tort claims between contractual parties (compare Wikingerhof) with the judge opting for the one stop shop approach (distinguishing ia Ryanair Ltd v Esso Italiana Srl [2015] 1 All ER (Comm) 152): 42: ‘there is a clear causal connection [between the contractual and tort claims, GAVC], which seems to be sufficient for the purposes of a clause worded “in connection with“.’ In conclusion: [52]: ‘whether damages are recoverable for an allegedly wrongful arrest made in seeking security for claims under the charter, ..is a claim “in connection with” the charter’ hence the E&W courts have jurisdiction. [39]: this ‘allows a single accounting, as regards the overall financial position of the parties as a result of the legal relationship created between them by the charter, and their dispute about what rights and obligations properly flow from that legal relationship.’

Obiter jurisdiction on the alternative grounds, under English residual rules, is also accepted (with the interesting note of the absence, in the Convention, of a gateway for counterclaims, in contrast with Brussels I and Brussels Ia).

Coming then to lis pendens under Article 21 Convention, this is dismissed. [70] The arrest claim plainly does not involve either the same cause of action or the same object as the Defendant’s tort claims seeking to recover damages for wrongful arrest, which are advanced solely by way of counterclaim in E&W. The factual and legal foundation for that counterclaim needs, on any view, to travel substantially beyond the matters the Claimant relies on for its own cause of action and the object of the counterclaim is to recover damages.

Neither [73] is an acknowledgment of service in the Gibraltar arrest proceedings does not amount to a submission to that jurisdiction which would preclude the Defendant from raising its distinct tort claims in E&W.

A stay on ‘related proceedings’ (Article 22 Convention) is also rejected for the reasons listed at [83]. Core reference here is Research in Motion v Visto [2007] EWHC 900 (Ch).

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, Chapter 1 Heading 1.7, Chapter 2 para 2.375, 2.469.

Eastern Pacific Chartering v Pola Maritime [2021] EWHC 1707 (Comm)
Interesting and unusual case involving the UK and Gibraltar and applying the 1968 Brussels Convention (!)
Lis pendens, choice of court (charterparty), whether issues arises out of samehttps://t.co/eNp2jpl4Zw

— Geert van Calster (@GAVClaw) June 28, 2021

Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) can be defined as lawsuits intended to intimidate and silence critics by burdening them with the cost of a legal defense, until they abandon their criticism or opposition.

Some jurisdictions have already passed anti-SLAPP laws. In its Action plan for democracy, of 2020, the Commission had already announced its intention to present an initiative to protect journalists and civil society against SLAPPs in 2021. An Expert group was created in December 2020.

The topic is of course not new. It has gained momentum again – possibly following the assassination of Daphne Caruana Galizia in October 2017- also at the Council of Europe, and within the civil society (see, for instance on the need for a EU legislative proposal to protect public watchdogs from legal harassment  here and here.)

On 5 July 2020, a study commissioned by the European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens’ Rights and Constitutional Affairs at the request of the JURI Committee on SLAPP and PIL instruments was published, authored by J. Borg-Barthet (who is one of the members of the Expert Group mentioned above), Benedetta Lobina and Magdalena Zabrocka.

The document analyses legal definitions of Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP), assesses the compatibility of anti-SLAPP legislation with EU law, and recommends that an anti-SLAPP Directive be adopted.

Of special interest for PIL is that it also recommends that the Brussels I bis Regulation and Rome II Regulation be recast to limit the incidence of SLAPPs. The final conclusion in this regard reads as follows:

In addition to the adoption of an anti-SLAPP Directive, it is recommended that the Brussels Ia Regulation be recast with a view to adopting a bespoke rule concerning defamation claims and thereby to distinguish jurisdiction in defamation cases from ordinary torts. To this end, it is recommended that jurisdiction should be grounded in the forum of the defendant’s domicile unless the parties agree otherwise. This would enable public interest speakers to foresee where they will be expected to defend themselves, and would be in keeping with the core values of the Brussels Ia Regulation, namely predictability and the limitation of forum shopping.
Greater predictability as to the outcomes of choice of law processes is also needed to dissuade meritless litigation intended to suppress public participation. Accordingly, it is recommended that a new rule be included in the Rome II Regulation which would harmonise national choice of law rules in defamation cases. It is recommended that this rule should focus on the closest connection with the publication and its audience, namely the law of the place to which the publication is directed.

I  expect comments – here or elsewhere- to both proposals and their underlying rationale.

The first impression is a little bit disappointing. The proposal regarding the applicable law is a general one for defamation cases, i.e., it is not SLAPP-specific. On jurisdiction, I would be cautious to spouse the assertion on page 39:

(…), the Court of Justice has developed a body of case law whose net effect is to afford further opportunities for forum shopping and vexatious litigation strategies in defamation cases, particularly where the claimed defamatory content is posted online.

Moreover  a solution which entails giving up eDate and Martinez looks unrealistic to me (in this regard, though, C-800/19 is worth considering; the Opinion was available in February 2021). Vexatious claims have always existed. The lis pendens and related actions rules provide a solution at the jurisdictional level for a plurality of claims within the EU: a word on why they would (or not) be fit in an anti-SLAPP scenario is missing. In addition, and more important, the Brussels regime does not prevent reacting against vexatious claims with the procedural tools available at the national level, such as abuse of process. That is why I am not convinced either by the following sentence, on page 42:

‘In particular, judgments concerning the deployment of antisuit injunctions reveal a Court that is reluctant to replace the ex ante general analysis deployed by the legislator with its, or a national court’s, judgement of the merits of jurisdictional justice in individual cases‘

Even if the bottom line was correct, antisuit injunctions would not have provided the pertinent example.

Beyond the EU borders, with the exception of Articles 33 and 34 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which have no parallel in the Lugano Convention, the situation is left to the Member States; simultaneous proceedings before the courts of the UK and the USA is simply a situation that cannot be solved by the European lawmaker.

There is indeed a need to balance the interests of the claimants and of the defendant (the target of the strategic lawsuit) also in relation to international jurisdiction and to the conflict of law rule.

In my opinion, achieving the goal requires a more grounded examination; also, and mainly, to acknowledge that the problem is to be addressed at a different level – something that the Study does in its 5th part devoted to an anti-SLAPP directive.

But, just like the authors say, the adoption and implementation of such a directive may take too long. The time to react is now, and it is not imperative (not even for reasons of distribution of competences) to wait for Brussels to take the lead.

(Photo: The use of SLAPPs © Image used under the license of Adobe Stock)

This post was contributed by Alexia Pato, who is Postdoc Research Fellow at the University of McGill (Montreal, Canada).

The present post provides an overview of the legal initiatives on artificial intelligence (AI) recently launched at the EU level and the questions they generate from a private international law (PIL) perspective.

The analysis starts with the 2021 Proposal for a Regulation on harmonised rules on AI and continues with the EU Parliament’s detailed recommendations for drawing up a Regulation on liability for the operation of AI systems.

Overview of the Proposed AI Regulation

On 21 April 2021, the EU Commission published its much-awaited Proposal for a Regulation laying down harmonised rules on AI, following explicit requests from the Council and the Parliament (see, in particular, the AI-related resolutions of the Parliament of October 2020 on ethics, civil liability and intellectual property). The proposed Regulation’s goal is to promote the free movement of AI-related goods and services, while ensuring the protection of fundamental rights.

If enacted, the Regulation would create a horizontal regulatory framework for the development, placement on the market and use of AI systems in the Union, depending on the risks that those systems generate for people’s health and safety or fundamental rights. In particular, Article 5 forbids AI practices which create an unacceptable risk (some exceptions may nevertheless apply). The prohibition extends to AI systems deploying subliminal techniques beyond a person’s consciousness to induce a particular behaviour and to those exploiting the vulnerabilities of a group of people (e.g., a doll integrated with a voice assistant that encourages children to play dangerous games in order to maximise their fun).

Real-time remote biometric identification (e.g., facial recognition) and social scoring are deemed to create an unacceptable risk as well. As regards high-risk AI systems (Title III), they must undergo an ex ante conformity assessment in order to be placed on the EU market (Articles 19 and Title III, Chapter 5).

The proposed Regulation imposes a series of requirements in relation to data, documentation and recording keeping, transparency and information to users, human oversight, robustness, accuracy and security (Articles 8 to 15). Examples of high-risk AI systems include medical assistants (e.g., IBM’s Watson assistant), chatbots and automated recruitment applications. Lastly, AI systems which create a low or minimal risk are permitted.

For a general assessment of the Proposal, see the CEPS Think Thank with Lucilla Sioli (DG CONNECT) available here, as well as the Ars Boni podcast available here.

The Extraterritorial Reach of EU law

As Article 2 of the proposed AI Regulation would confer the Regulation an extraterritorial reach, PIL questions emerge. In particular, the EU rules on AI are meant to apply to (1) providers placing AI systems on the EU market or putting them into service there, irrespective of their place of establishment; (2) users located in the EU; (3) providers and users located in a third state, when the output produced by the AI system is used – but not marketed – in the EU.

Remarkably, Article 2 bypasses the traditional choice of law methodology and unilaterally delineates the Regulation’s territorial scope of application.

This legislative technique has been used on other occasions: the most recent example is perhaps Article 3 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). Literature on the latter provision shows that the extraterritorial application of laws creates a fertile ground for overlaps and high compliance costs. The same observation could apply to AI if other states chose to exercise their (legislative) jurisdiction extraterritorially. How private (or public) international law will tackle that concern remains to be seen.

Moreover, interpretative issues are likely to arise, as the wording of Article 2 is vague. In particular, when is a user “located” in the EU – does the temporary presence on the territory trigger the application of the Regulation? What is the “output” of an AI system? And finally, when is an AI system “placed on the EU market” or “put into service” there?

The Law Applicable to Civil Liability

It is acknowledged that the misuse of AI systems may be harmful, despite the great potential of technologies to significantly improve our lives in many sectors. Traffic accidents involving either autonomous – i.e. driverless – or driver-assist vehicles are a telling example in that regard.

Currently, the law applicable to civil liability in such a scenario essentially depends on the actors involved – the driver, the manufacturer of the car, the designer of the software, etc. Several PIL systems applying different connecting factors might come into play, namely the Rome II Regulation, the 1971 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents and the 1973 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Products Liability. Considering the fact that national civil liability regimes vary (sometimes significantly) from one state to another, the outcome of a case might be different depending on the court seized.

For a thorough PIL analysis, see T. Kadner Graziano, “Cross-Border Traffic Accidents in the EU – The Potential Impact of Driverless Cars” (Study for the JURI Committee, 2016), available here.

The EU Commission announced that a new piece of legislation addressing civil liability should soon complement the proposed AI Regulation, following the EU Parliament’s detailed recommendations for drawing up a regulation on liability for the operation of AI systems. If followed by the Commission and adopted, the text would partially harmonise national laws on civil liability in the EU. These shall however not be replaced; only adjustments would be provided.

The object of the future Regulation is to hold the operators of high-risk AI systems strictly liable, while operators of other AI systems would be subject to a fault-based liability regime. Finally, the drafting of the future Regulation should go hand in hand with the necessary review of the Product Liability Directive in order to build up a consistent liability framework in the EU.

According to Article 2 of the Parliament’s Draft Proposal, the liability rules enacted at the EU level would apply “on the territory of the Union where a physical or virtual activity, device or process driven by an AI system has caused harm or damage to the life, health, physical integrity of a natural person, to the property of a natural or legal person or has caused significant immaterial harm resulting in a verifiable economic loss”.

I find the wording of this provision unclear: shall the future Regulation apply where a court of a Member State is seized with a dispute involving damages caused by AI systems (as the terms “on the territory of the Union” suggests) or must the damage, the operator, the activity or the victim additionally be located in the EU?

Additionally, even though the future Regulation bypasses the Rome II Regulation according to Article 27 of the latter, traditional choice of law rules would still be needed to designate the law applicable to questions falling out of the future Regulation’s scope (such as the law applicable to multiple liability where non-operators are involved, just to mention one example). Fragmentation would therefore not be completely avoided.

For an analysis of the Draft Proposal from a PIL perspective, see J. von Hein, “Liability for Artificial Intelligence in Private International Law” (online presentation, 25 June 2020), available here.

Conclusion

The interaction of AI with the PIL field brings interesting research questions on the table for legal scholars. As things currently stand, however, the EU’s legislative initiatives do not overcome the sempiternal difficulties experienced in PIL, namely the fragmented application of laws, and the difficulty to manage interactions between multiple legal texts because of their overlapping and extraterritorial effect.

The last issue of the Revue Critique de Droit International Privé has been released. It contains eight articles and several case notes.

The editorial (authored by Horatia Muir Watt, Dominique Bureau and Sabine Corneloup) and five of the articles deal with the reserved share (réserve héréditaire) in international successions. These five articles are authored by: Paul Lagarde (« Une ultime (?) bataille de la réserve héréditaire »), Cécile Pérez (« Quelques observations relatives à la réserve héréditaire dans le projet de loi confortant le respect des principes de la République »), Diane Le Grand de Belleroche (« Contre le retour du droit de prélèvement en droit français : une vue de la pratique du droit international »), Suzel Ramaciotti (« Le prélèvement compensatoire du projet d’article 913 du code civil à l’épreuve des exigences européennes et constitutionnelles »), and Nathalie Joubert (« Droit de prélèvement, réserve héréditaire, protection des héritiers contre les discriminations, quelle méthode ? »).

The sixth article, authored by Christelle Chalas and Horatia Muir Watt deals with the international jurisdiction of courts in matters relating to the environnemental responsibility of multinational companies.

In the seventh article, Vincent Richard presents the recast of the regulation on the service of judicial and extrajudicial documents.

The eighth article, by Christine Budzikiewicz, discusses the reform of international adoption law in Germany.

A full table of contents is available here.

In recent years, the debate surrounding consensual justice and party autonomy has received increasing attention in the national and international arenas and has raised a broad array of questions. In the pressing need to observe this phenomenon from different perspectives lies the rationale behind a newly founded biannual journal, Giustizia consensuale. The journal, founded and directed by Prof. Silvana Dalla Bontà and Prof. Paola Lucarelli, features contributions in both Italian and English.

By adopting an interdisciplinary and holistic approach, the journal aims to investigate the meaning of consensual justice, its relation with judicial justice, and the potential for integrating – rather than contrasting – these two forms of justice. This investigation is premised on the relationship between justice and private autonomy as well as forms of integrative, participatory, and restorative justice. By being particularly suited for meeting the needs of an increasingly complicated and multi-faceted society, these forms of justice ultimately promote social cohesion and reconciliation. Against this backdrop, Giustizia consensuale strives to make a valid contribution to the discourse on conflict and the meaning of justice by fostering an interdisciplinary dialogue which encompasses both theory and practice.

The first issue of Giustizia Consensuale has just been released and it features:

Silvana Dalla Bontà (University of Trento), Giustizia consensuale (‘Consensual Justice – A Foreword’; in Italian)

Paola Lucarelli (University of Firenze), Mediazione dei conflitti: una spinta generosa verso il cambiamento (Conflict Mediation: A Push for Cultural Change; in Italian)

From the Italian Recovery and Resilience Plan to the guidelines of the Italian Ministry of Justice, the urgency of a reform to strengthen out-of-court dispute resolution procedures clearly emerges. Recovery and resilience become fundamental objectives. Conflict mediation is the path chosen to achieve social cohesion and reconciliation. Promoting and strengthening this dispute resolution mechanism is important not only to reduce the judicial backlog, but also to empower the parties to self-tailor the solution of their conflict with the assistance of their attorneys. By fostering responsibility, self-determination, awareness and trust, mediation makes citizens and professionals protagonists in the process of change that combines judicial and consensual justice.

Francesco P. Luiso (University of Pisa), La «proposta» del mediatore (The Mediator’s ‘Dispute Settlement Offer’; in Italian)

The Italian Legislative Decree No. 28 of 4 March 2010 – implementing the Directive 2008/52/EC – enables, in certain conditions, the mediator to submit a settlement offer to the conflicting parties. In the case that the mediation fails, the judge, in the subsequent court proceedings, might sanction the non-accepting party when allocating procedural costs. Nonetheless, the aforementioned Legislative Decree does not compel the mediator to submit such a settlement offer. However, the mediation rules of some institutions oblige the mediator to make a settlement offer to the parties. Against this background, when ordering the parties to attempt mediation, some courts require them to file their mediation application with a mediation institution allowing the mediator to submit a settlement offer to the parties. In this article, the author argues that these court orders are against the above-mentioned Legislative Decree. In fact, this does not permit the judge to make any particular determination regarding the mediation procedure, the parties, or the mediator themselves. Furthermore, the author underlines how the judge could never take the mediator’s settlement offer into consideration in the pending proceedings. While the judge grounds their decision on what is right and what is wrong, the mediator’s settlement offer revolves around the needs and interests of the conflicting parties, thus impeding any comparison between their contents.

Antonio Briguglio (University of Rome ‘Tor Vergata’), Conciliazione e arbitrato. Conciliazione nell’arbitrato. Appunti sparsi fra diritto, psicologia e prassi (Conciliation and Arbitration. Conciliation in Arbitration. Notes on Law, Psychology, and Practice; in Italian)

The article deals with the relationship between conciliation and arbitration within the overall ADR system. It first analyses the conceptual, legal and systematic differences between conciliation and arbitration, with references to some areas of partial overlap (such as, for example, the one now opened by the Singapore Convention of 2019). The author then takes into consideration the parties’ and adjudicators’ different approaches to conciliation both in in-court proceedings and arbitration. Subsequently, the attention is focused on the attempt of conciliation in the course of the arbitral proceedings; on the so-called multi-step clauses that provide for a mandatory attempt of conciliation before the commencement of arbitration; and on the ‘award by consent’ in the practice of international arbitration.

Neil Andrews (University of Cambridge), Procedure, Party Agreement, and Contract (in English)

In this piece the author considers three points of interaction between agreement and procedure. (1) The parties might consensually choose the applicable procedure, notably the choice between (a) judicial proceedings and (b) arbitration. If they have chosen (a), the parties might stipulate which court and in which jurisdiction the matter will be litigated. Having chosen instead (b) arbitration, the parties will normally make explicit the ‘seat’ (London, Milan, New York, etc) and the size of the arbitral tribunal (one, three, five, etc). Also falling within (1), there is possibility that the parties will agree to impose on themselves preliminary ‘negotiation agreements’ and/or mediation agreements. (2) The parties can take a further step and specify or modify the elements of the relevant formal process (whether that process is court proceedings or arbitration). This modification of the default elements of the procedure will involve a ‘bespoke’ or ad hoc agreement, rather than simply adopting national or institutional procedural rules. However, this is less common. Most parties adopt without modification the relevant procedure ‘off the peg’. (3) Settlement is the consensual disposal or narrowing of the dispute. In practice, this is the most important way in which agreement and procedure interact. Settlement can occur before or after court or arbitration proceedings have commenced. It is also possible that settlement might occur even after the first-instance judgment has been obtained, for example, when appeal or enforcement proceedings are pending.

Margherita Ramajoli (University of Milan), Per una giustizia amministrativa alternativa con particolare (anche se non esclusivo) riguardo alle transazioni pubblicistiche (For an Alternative Administrative Justice: Focusing on Public Dispute Settlements; in Italian)

The use of alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in public interest litigation brings both substantial and procedural advantages. They may improve the quality of public decision-making, foster the adoption of shared solutions, re-establish dialogue between parties whose relations are bound to last over time, contribute to moralisation by making clear agreements otherwise not intended to emerge, and finally, make the administrative judicial review more efficient by directing the demand for justice elsewhere. In addition, alternative dispute resolution mechanisms are in tune with the current changes in administrative law; there is a deep link between droit souple and justice douce, between soft law and ADR, between non-traditional substantive law and alternative administrative judicial review. However, alternative justice is a phenomenon not yet sufficiently developed in public litigation, because of some debated issues in its use. Specifically, it is not easy to harmonise the very purpose of ADR to definitively settle a dispute with the perpetual protection of public interest institutionally entrusted to administrative authorities, as demonstrated by how the latter use the settlement. The introduction of a framework law on ADR in public interest litigation could solve some of the most dramatic issues, naturally maintaining the indispensable flexibility.

Teresa Arruda Alvim (Pontifícia Universidade Católica de São Paulo) and Márcio Bellocchi (Universidade de São Paulo), Mediazione. Il frutto di un buon esercizio del diritto (Mediation. The Result of a Mindful Exercise of Rights; in Italian)

In the last few decades, even civil law jurisdictions have witnessed an increase in the promotion of alternative dispute resolution. Among various reasons for its adoption, ADR affords the parties the possibility to self-tailor a solution to their conflict while significantly diminishing the case overload of the judiciary. Nevertheless, just as varied are the obstacles to the diffusion of ADR, ranging from the lack of preparation of mediators to the traditional adversarial approach of attorneys. The authors examine each of these profiles in the perspective of the Brazilian legal system, analysing the reasons behind the promotion of ADR, its practical implications, and the future outlook on a multi-door justice.

Colin Rule (University of Stanford), Reinventing Justice with Online Dispute Resolution (in English)

Online Dispute Resolution (ODR) is the study of how to use technology to help parties resolve their disputes. Originally created to help e-Commerce companies build trust with their users, ODR is now being integrated into the courts to expand access to justice and reduce costs. With the expansion of artificial intelligence and machine learning, ODR has the potential to play a major role in the justice systems of the future, but there are many questions that still need to be answered. This article outlines the need for ODR, provides a short history of its development, and describes some of the challenges that could accompany its expansion.

Silvana Dalla Bontà (University of Trento), Una giustizia «co-esistenziale» online nello spazio giuridico europeo? Spunti critici sul pacchetto ADR-ODR per i consumatori (‘Co-Existential’ Online Justice within the EU Judicial Area? Some Constructive Criticism on the Consumer ADR/ODR Package; in Italian)

Since the 1990s, the European Community, now the European Union, has shown particular regard to the matter of extra-judicial settlement of civil and commercial disputes. The European Union recognized the added value brought by alternative dispute resolution mechanisms in answering the problems posed by cross-border litigation and thus facilitating the creation of the Single Market. The Community’s attention first focused on consumer disputes (Recommendations 98/257/EC and 2001/310/EC); it subsequently extended its reach to all civil and commercial disputes (Directive 2008/52/EC); ultimately, it reverted its focus back to consumer disputes with the Directive on consumer Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR) and the Regulation on consumer Online Dispute Resolution (ODR),  both adopted in 2013. This article proposes an in-depth analysis of the objectives, the scope, and the application of the two above-mentioned legal acts composing the so-called ADR/ODR package for consumers, highlighting its strengths and weaknesses. In particular, the discussion focuses on the ODR Platform for the resolution of consumer-to-business disputes launched by the European Union in 2016. In reviewing its functioning through the statistical data collected by the European Union, the author inquires whether the ODR Platform provides for the creation of a ‘co-existential justice’ in the European legal area or whether other complementary instruments should be implemented to grant a high standard of protection for consumers as the European Treaties impose.

 

EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The third EFFORTS Newsletter has just been released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.

Regular updates are also available via the Project’s website, and  LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

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

(This post is provided by Zeyu Huang, who is an associate attorney of Hui Zhong Law Firm based in Shenzhen. Mr. Huang obtained his LLB degree from the Remin University of China Law School. He is also a PhD candidate & LLM at the Faculty of Law in University of Macau. The author may be contacted at the e-mail address: huangzeyu@huizhonglaw.com)

When confronted with international parallel proceedings due to the existence of a competent foreign court having adjudicative jurisdiction, the seized foreign court located in common law jurisdictions seems to see it as no offence to Chinese courts by granting anti-suit injunctions to restrain Chinese proceedings. This is because the common law court believes that “An order of this kind [anti-suit injunction] is made in personam against a party subject to the court’s jurisdiction by way of requiring compliance with agreed terms. It does not purport to have direct effect on the proceedings in the PRC. This court respects such proceedings as a matter of judicial comity”. [1] However, the fact that the anti-suit injunction is not directly targeted at people’s courts in the PRC does not prevent Chinese judges from believing that it is inappropriate for foreign courts to issue an anti-suit injunction restraining Chinese proceedings. Instead, they would likely view such interim order as something that purports to indirectly deprive the party of the right of having access to Chinese court and would unavoidably impact Chinese proceedings.
The attitude of Chinese courts towards the anti-suit injunction – a fine-tuning tool to curb parallel proceedings – has changed in recent years. In fact, they have progressively become open-minded to resorting to anti-suit injunctions or other similar orders that are issued to prevent parties from continuing foreign proceedings in parallel. Following that, the real question is whether and how anti-suit injunction is compatible with Chinese law. Some argued that Article 100 of the PRC CPL provides a legal basis for granting injunctions having similar effects with anti-suit injunction at common law. [2] It provides that:
“The people’s court may upon the request of one party to issue a ruling to preserve the other party’s assets or compel the other party to perform certain act or refrain from doing certain act, in cases where the execution of the judgment would face difficulties, or the party would suffer other damages due to the acts of the other party or for other reasons. If necessary, the people’s court also could make a ruling of such preservative measures without one party’s application.” [3]
Accordingly, Chinese people’s court may make a ruling to limit one party from pursuing parallel foreign proceedings if such action may render the enforcement of Chinese judgment difficult or cause other possible damages to the other party.
In maritime disputes, Chinese maritime courts are also empowered by special legislation to issue maritime injunctions having anti-suit or anti-anti-suit effects. Article 51 of the PRC Maritime Special Procedure Law provides that the maritime court may upon the application of a maritime claimant issue a maritime injunction to compel the respondent to do or not to do certain acts in order to protect the claimant’s lawful rights and interests from being infringed. [4] The maritime injunction is not constrained by the jurisdiction agreement or arbitration agreement as agreed upon between the parties in relation to the maritime claim. [5] In order to obtain a maritime injunction, three requirements shall be satisfied – firstly, the applicant has a specific maritime claim; secondly, there is a need to rectify the respondent’s act which violates the law or breaches the contract; thirdly, a situation of emergency exists in which the damages would be caused or increased if the maritime injunction is not issued immediately. [6] Like the provision of the PRC CPL, the maritime injunction issued by the Chinese maritime court is mainly directed to mitigate the damages caused by the party’s behaviour to the other parties’ relevant rights and interests.
In Huatai P&C Insurance Corp Ltd Shenzhen Branch v Clipper Chartering SA, the Maritime Court of Wuhan City granted the maritime injunction upon the claimant’s application to oblige the respondent to immediately withdraw the anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR to restrain the Mainland proceedings. [7] The Hong Kong anti-suit injunction was successfully sought by the respondent on the grounds of the existence of a valid arbitration agreement. [8] However, the respondent did not challenge the jurisdiction of the Mainland maritime court over the dispute arising from the contract of carriage of goods by sea. Therefore, the Maritime Court of Wuhan City held that the respondent had submitted to its jurisdiction. As a result, the application launched by the respondent to the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR for the anti-suit injunction to restrain the Mainland Chinese proceedings had infringed the legitimate rights and interests of the claimant. In accordance with Article 51 of the PRC Maritime Special Procedure Law, a Chinese maritime injunction was granted to order the respondent domiciled in Greece to withdraw the Hong Kong anti-suit injunction (HCCT28/2017). [9] As the maritime injunction in the Huatai Property case was a Mainland Chinese ruling issued directly against the anti-suit injunction granted by a Hong Kong court, it is fair to say that if necessary Chinese people’s court does not hesitate to issue a compulsory injunction “which orders a party not to seek injunction relief in another forum in relation to proceedings in the issuing forum”. [10] This kind of compulsory injunction is also called ‘anti-anti-suit injunction’ or ‘defensive anti-suit injunction’. [11]
When it comes to civil and commercial matters, including preserving intellectual property rights, the people’s court in Mainland China is also prepared to issue procedural orders or rulings to prevent the parties from pursuing foreign proceedings, similar to anti-suit injunctions or anti-anti-suit injunction in common law world. In Guangdong OPPO Mobile Telecommunications Corp Ltd and its Shenzhen Branch v Sharp Corporation and ScienBiziP Japan Corporation, the plaintiff OPPO made an application to the seized Chinese court for a ruling to preserve actions or inactions.[12] Before and after the application, the defendant Sharp had brought tort claims arising from SEP (standard essential patent) licensing against OPPO by commencing several parallel proceedings before German courts, a Japanese court and a Taiwanese court. [13] In the face of foreign parallel proceedings, the Intermediate People’s Court of Shenzhen City of Guangdong Province rendered a ruling to restrain the defendant Sharp from pursing any new action or applying for any judicial injunction before a Chinese final judgment was made for the patent dispute. [14] The breach of the ruling would entail a fine of RMB 1 million per day. [15] Almost 7 hours after the Chinese ‘anti-suit injunction’ was issued, a German ‘anti-anti-suit injunction’ was issued against the OPPO. [16] Then, the Shenzhen court conducted a court investigation to the Sharp’s breach of its ruling and clarified the severe legal consequences of the breach. [17] Eventually, Sharp choose to defer to the Chinese ‘anti-suit injunction’ through voluntarily and unconditionally withdrawing the anti-anti-suit injunction granted by the German court. [18] Interestingly enough, Germany, a typical civil law country, and other EU countries have also seemingly taken a U-turn by starting to issue anti-anti-suit injunctions in international litigation in response to anti-suit injunctions made by other foreign courts, especially the US court. [19]
In some other IP cases involving Chinese tech giants, Chinese courts appear to feel more and more comfortable with granting compulsory rulings having the same legal effects of anti-suit injunction and anti-anti-suit injunction. For example, in another seminal case publicized by the SPC in 2020, Huawei Technologies Corp Ltd (“Huawei”) applied to the Court for a ruling to prevent the respondent Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (“Conversant”) from further seeking enforcement of the judgment rendered by the Dusseldorf Regional Court in Germany. [20] Before the application, a pair of parallel proceedings existed, concurrently pending before the SPC as the second-instance court and the Dusseldorf Regional Court. On the same date of application, the German regional court delivered a judgement in favour of Conversant. Within 48 hours after receiving the Huawei’s application for an anti-suit injunction, the SPC granted the injunction to prohibit Conversant from applying for enforcement of the German judgment; if Conversant failed to comply with the injunction, a fine (RMB 1 million per day) would be imposed, accumulating day by day since the date of breach. [21] Conversant applied for a reconsideration of the anti-suit injunction, and it was however rejected by the SPC eventually. [22] The SPC’s anti-suit injunction against the German regional court’s decision compelled both parties to go back to the negotiating table, and the dispute between the two parties striving for global parallel proceedings was finally resolved by reaching a settlement agreement. [23]
The SPC’s injunction in Huawei v. Conversant is commended as the very first action preservation ruling having the “anti-suit injunction” nature in the field of intellectual property rights litigation in China, which has prematurely established the Chinese approach to anti-suit injunction in judicial practice. [24] It is believed by the Court to be an effective tool to curb parallel proceedings concurrent in various jurisdictions across the globe. [25] We still wait to see Chinese court’s future approach in other civil and commercial matters to anti-suit injunction or anti-anti-suit injunction issued by itself as well as those granted by foreign courts.

———-

1. See Impala Warehousing and Logistics (Shanghai) Co Ltd v Wanxiang Resources (Singapore) Pte Ltd [2015] EWHC 811, para.144.
2. See Liang Zhao, ‘Party Autonomy in Choice of Court and Jurisdiction Over Foreign-Related Commercial and Maritime Disputes in China’ (2019) 15 Journal of Private International Law 541, at 565.
3. See Article 100, para.1 of the PRC CPL (2017).
4. See Article 51 of the PRC Special Maritime Procedure Law (1999).
5. See Article 53 of the PRC Special Maritime Procedure Law (1999).
6. See Article 56 of the PRC Special Maritime Procedure Law (1999).
7. See Huatai Property & Casualty Insurance Co Ltd Shenzhen Branch v Clipper Chartering SA (2017) E 72 Xing Bao No.3 of the Maritime Court of Wuhan City.
8. See HCCT 28/2017 of the High Court of the Hong Kong SAR.
9. See (2017) E 72 Xing Bao No.3.
10. See Andrew S. Bell, Forum Shopping and Venue in Transnational Litigation (Oxford University Press 2003), at 196.
11. See ibid.
12. See (2020) Yue 03 Min Chu No.689-1.
13. See ibid.
14. See ibid.
15. See ibid.
16. See ibid.
17. See ibid.
18. See ibid.
19. See Greta Niehaus, ‘First Anti-Anti-Suit Injunction in Germany: The Costs for International Arbitration’ Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 28 February 2021.
20. See Huawei Technologies Corp Ltd and Others v Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.732, No.733, No.734-I.
21. See ibid.
22. See Conversant Wireless Licensing S.A.R.L. v Huawei Technologies Corp Ltd and Others, (2019) Zui Gao Fa Zhi Min Zhong No.732, No.733, No.734-II.
23. See Case No.2 of the “10 Seminal Intellectual Property Right Cases before Chinese Courts”, Fa Ban [2021] No.146, the General Office of the Supreme People’s Court.
24. See ibid.
25. See ibid.

Earlier this year, Charlotte Guillard defended her dissertation at the University of Paris II Panthéon-Assas on Conflict justice and material justice : pertinence and sustainability of the distinction. Study in private international family law (Justice matérielle et justice conflictuelle : pertinence et pérennité de la distinction en droit international privé).

The author has provided the following  summary in English:

The distinction between conflict of laws justice and substantive justice has its origin in an academic attempt to foster an idea that has proved crucial to the general theory of private international law. This idea builds on the intuition that private international relations need to be processed specifically by the law, which implies in turn a customized conception of justice, namely conflict of laws justice. In this perspective, conflict of laws justice aims at fulfilling the diverse interests at stake in a private international relation: the interests of the different parties involved and the interests of the domestic legal systems. In the context of conflict of laws, conflictual justice manifests itself methodologically through the classical (“savignian”) conflict of laws rule, a rule that purports to accommodate those interests, without taking into account the substantive aspects of the situation. As an exception, conflictual justice may give way to substantive considerations. In that case, another conception of justice, one that is substantive, takes precedence.

The methodological manifestations of substantive justice are varied. It is usually associated with tools that seek to defend or promote imperative values within each State’s legal order, such as the exception of public policy of the forum (“exception d’ordre public international”).

This articulation of the different conceptions of justice is usually presented as following a principle/exception organization, thus providing a framework for private international law. The borderland between the two conceptions of justice muddled, however, as a result of an evolution in the field of private international law.

The change in the field that is most striking lies with its materialization. Overriding mandatory rules, fundamental rights, as well as the development of conflict of laws rules that achieve substantive aims are obvious examples.

Increasingly, the diverse methods of regulation specific to this legal field have been seen to borrow routinely from both conceptions of justice, shaking the classical distinction.

This research explores the remaining pertinence of the framework provided by the distinction between conflict of laws justice and substantive justice, and the appropriateness of its conservation in the field of contemporary private international law.

The study was conducted within the scope of private international law relating to family and personal matters. It is indeed within this restricted field that the questions raised are most sensitive, owing to continuing legal particularisms and national specificities, a natural breeding ground for the materialization of PIL.

As an outcome, this study shows the many weaknesses in the classical representation of the distinction between the two conceptions of justice. The actual meaning of each conception remains elusive and their mutual articulation according to a principle/exception organization is no longer reflected in positive law. Further, this study purports to offer an articulation of the two conceptions of justice that would better serve current PIL.

In this perspective, it appeared necessary to shed two commonly accepted ideas which have unnecessarily confined PIL until now. The first one relates to the conception of conflictual justice as being neutral. The second one seeks to limit substantive justice to the internal conceptions of each legal order.

This study purports to redefine the distinction between the two conception of justice while still conceptualizing their articulation according to a principle/exception organization, in which the conflictual conception of justice features as principle. This private international law conception of justice should ideally result in the conciliation of the diverse interests at stake, in order to achieve international legal harmony (of solutions) with regards to private international relations.

Whenever such an outcome appears unachievable (or merely irrelevant), substantive justice shall step in to ensure that one interest prevails over the others, without any predetermined preference. There is something to gain in such a reconfiguration. Namely, it would allow for a more satisfying distribution of PIL methods between the two conceptions of justice. This would be particularly beneficial regarding fundamental rights, whose role remains a thorny methodological issue in PIL. The proposed reconfiguration could create an opportunity to see them not merely as an expression of substantive justice (in keeping with the majority view) but also in relation to the private international law conception of justice.

Through this reconceptualization, the distinction between the two conceptions of justice may aspire to be more than abstract academic construction. It indeed appears as a useful tool in the organization of the methodological pluralism in private international law. This can prove critical to help authorities dealing with PIL questions to better handle their task in choosing the right method and reaching the right solution.

Dr. Guillard presented her study in a conference in Paris in March 2021 which can be watched here (in French).

Advocate General M Szpunar delivered today his opinion in case C‑422/20 (RK v CR), which is about the Succession Regulation. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 6, sous a), et l’article 7, sous a), du règlement (UE) nº 650/2012 […] doivent être interprétés en ce sens que la juridiction de l’État membre dont la compétence est censée résulter d’un déclinatoire de compétence de la juridiction préalablement saisie n’est pas habilitée à vérifier, premièrement, si la juridiction préalablement saisie a, à juste titre, considéré que la loi de cet État membre a été choisie ou est réputée avoir été choisie pour régir la succession, deuxièmement, si l’une des parties à la procédure a présenté une demande au titre de l’article 6, sous a), de ce règlement devant la juridiction préalablement saisie et, troisièmement, si la juridiction préalablement saisie a, à juste titre, considéré que les juridictions dudit État membre sont mieux placées pour statuer sur la succession, lorsque ces trois conditions ont été vérifiées par la juridiction préalablement saisie ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=243877&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=499554

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑289/20 (IB v FA), which is about Brussels II bis.  The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (CE) no 2201/2003 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que, aux fins de l’attribution de compétence, chaque conjoint ne peut se voir reconnaître qu’une résidence habituelle.

Quand un conjoint partage sa vie entre deux ou plusieurs États membres de telle sorte qu’il n’est aucunement possible de considérer l’un de ces États comme étant celui de sa résidence habituelle au sens de l’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement no 2201/2003, la compétence judiciaire internationale doit être déterminée conformément à d’autres critères prévus par ce règlement et, le cas échéant, conformément aux critères résiduels en vigueur dans les États membres.

Dans ce même cas de figure, la compétence peut être exceptionnellement attribuée aux juridictions des États membres d’une résidence non habituelle d’un conjoint, lorsque l’application du règlement no 2201/2003 et des fors résiduels ne fait ressortir la compétence internationale d’aucun État membre ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=243875&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=499554

Written by Ekaterina Pannebakker

On 1 July 2021, Switzerland, which is the depository of the Lugano Convention 2007, notified the Parties to the Convention of the EU’s refusal to give its consent to the UK’s accession to the Convention. The notification is available on the website of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs in several languages. It states the EU is not ‘in a position to give its consent to invite the United Kingdom to accede to the Lugano Convention’, quoting the note verbale received by the depository from the EU on 28 June 2021.

This is the final chord in the consideration of the UK’s after-Brexit application to accede to the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Lugano, 2007. As previously reported on conflictoflaws (inter alia), the accession to the Convention is subject to the consent of all the current Parties. The EU’s refusal was expected, since the European Commission gave a negative advice to the European Parliament. Noteworthy is perhaps that the Convention does not limit the number of attempts a State can make to accede to the Convention. This means (theoretically) the UK can apply again in the future.

 

This Thursday AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in the case IB, C-289/20. It is another request for a preliminary ruling addressing the issue of multiple places of residence. The recent take on this issue concerned the framework established by the Succession Regulation. In its judgment in the case E.E., C-80/19, the Court of Justice held the last habitual residence of the deceased, within the meaning of that regulation, must be established by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of the Member States.

In the case IB, C-289/20, the Court is invited to interpret the Brussels II bis Regulation in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling originating from the proceedings for a divorce.

The preliminary question reads as follows:

Where, as in the present case, it is apparent from the factual circumstances that one of the spouses divides his time between two Member States, is it permissible to conclude, in accordance with and for the purposes of the application of Article 3 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] that he or she is habitually resident in two Member States, such that, if the conditions listed in that article are met in two Member States, the courts of those two States have equal jurisdiction to rule on the divorce?

In his Opinion, AG proposes to the Court to consider that under the Brussels II bis Regulation a spouse may have only one place of habitual residence (points 83 et 90). If, in fact, as the preliminary question presupposes, a spouse divides his life between two Member States, it has to be considered that he or she does not have a place of habitual residence within the meaning of Article 3 of the Regulation (point 98). If that leads ultimately to the situation where no forum within the EU can hear the case for a divorce, in order to remedy situations of denial of justice, the jurisdiction might be exceptionally attributed to the courts of one of the Member State where the spouse resides (points 100 and 101).

Instead of providing a summary of the elaborate analysis offered by the Opinion, it seems more meaningful to highlight some of its points.

At the outset, AG observes that the entry into force of the Regulation 2019/1111 will not affect the rules on jurisdiction of relevance for a divorce already provided for in the Brussels II bis Regulation (point 27).

He also seems to reject the idea that notion of ‘habitual residence’ should necessarily receive the same meaning among the EU private international law instruments that elevate the place of habitual residence to the role of a connecting factor (point 39). Scepticism regarding this idea is expressed on several occasions (see, for instance, point 50).

The subjective factor that corresponds to the intention of a spouse might come into play when identifying the place of habitual residence. According to AG, the criteria that normally characterize “habitual residence” may be supplemented – or even replaced – by the intentions of a spouse (point 66).

Under the Brussels II bis Regulation a spouse may have only one place of habitual residence and multiple places of “non-habitual” residence which are, however, irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (points 83 et 90).

Ultimately, where no court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Brussels II bis Regulation, including the national rules of jurisdiction that may be of relevance under Article 7 of the Regulation (residual jurisdiction), the courts of one of the Member States where the spouse (non-habitually) resides may exercise jurisdiction in order to remedy situations of denial of justice (points 100 and 101). This consideration seems to draw inspiration from the doctrine of the forum of necessity, even though this notion itself does not appear in the Opinion. Besides, at least to a certain extent the terms employed here seem to echo the wording of Recital 16 of the Maintenance Regulation and Recital 31 of the Succession Regulation, which contrary to the Brussels II bis Regulation explicitly provide for a forum of necessity. In a similar vein, the reference to the “deprivation of the judicial protection within the Union” at point 99 (“ne priverait pas nécessairement les parties de la protection juridictionnelle au sein de l’Union”) may make one think of Article 47 of the Charter.

The Opinion can be consulted here (no English version yet).

The author of this post is Burcu Yüksel Ripley, who is a Lecturer in law and the Director of the Centre for Commercial Law at the University of Aberdeen.

In the legal proceedings that European Union (EU) brought before the Belgian courts against AstraZeneca in April 2021 and May 2021, one of the key questions is the law applicable to the Advance Purchase Agreement (“APA”) for the production, purchase and supply of a Covid-19 Vaccine in the European Union signed between the European Commission (with a business address in Belgium) and AstraZeneca (incorporated in Sweden with a business address therein) on 27 August 2020.

Since the publication of the APA, which is governed by the laws of Belgium as per its Section 18.4, there have been discussions around whether the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (known as the CISG or the Vienna Sales Convention 1980) applies to this agreement (see eg Global sales law in a global pandemic: The CISG as the applicable law to the EU-AstraZeneca Advance Purchase Agreement? written by Dr Ben Köhler and EU-AstraZeneca contract – applicability of the CISG? written by Till Maier-Lohmann and cited in Dr Köhler’s blog).

But the fact that this question relates to the law applicable to the APA, and accordingly the application of the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations, seems to have been overlooked so far apart from a couple of publications (see eg Sixto A. Sánchez Lorenzo, “El advance purchase agreement (APA) entre AstraZeneca y la comisión europea visto desde el Derecho privado”, La Ley: Unión Europea, No 90 March 2021, for which a useful summary in English was provided in Professor Matthias Lehmann’s post in this blog entitled Suing AstraZeneca: Who, Where, and under Which Law?).

Upon the first decision of the Belgian court on 18 June 2021 which states at paragraph 29 at p.39 that “Les conventions doivent être interpretées au regard de l’intention commune des parties, conformément à l’article 1156 de l’ancien Code Civil” (“The agreements must be interpreted with regard to the common intention of the parties, in accordance with Article 1156 of the former Civil Code”), further questions have been raised in relation to the applicable law: “Has the court held that Article 3(1) of Rome I Regulation excludes the application of the CISG?; Did the Court apply its domestic conflict rules?; Does the choice of Belgian law by the parties preclude the application of the CISG?”(see Some questions about the first decision of the Belgian court in the dispute between AstraZeneca and the European Commission – CISG-Portugal.org by César Pires).

The relationship between the Rome I Regulation and the CISG is at the heart of this discussion. Which instrument should be the starting point of the applicable law analysis for the EU-AstraZeneca APA and does this matter in practice?

Relationship between Rome I and the CISG for EU Member States Party to the CISG

The Rome I Regulation is an EU private international law instrument concerning the law applicable to contractual obligations. Under Article 1(1), it applies in the EU, in situations involving a conflict of laws, to contractual obligations in civil and commercial matters that fall into its scope. Being in the form of a regulation, Rome I has general application, is binding in its entirety and directly applicable in all EU Member States (with the exception of Denmark) pursuant to Article 288 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU.

On the other hand, the CISG is an international convention which provides primarily uniform substantive law rules relating to international sale of goods contracts that fall into its scope. Under Article 1(1), it applies to contracts between parties whose places of business are in different States if either (a) both of those States are Contracting States or (b) the rules of private international law lead to the law of a Contracting State (unless a state reservation exists regarding the 1(1)(b) situation as per Article 95 or parties have excluded the application of the CISG as per Article 6). The CISG has been adopted by the majority of EU Member States, including Belgium and Sweden, and is in force as part of their national law.

It has been argued on different grounds that if the forum is located in an EU Member State party to the CISG, the CISG takes precedence over Rome I or is capable of applying directly (or autonomously) without recourse to Rome I. This seems to be the prevailing view, notably in Germany, and has been recently endorsed in the UNCITRAL, HCCH and Unidroit Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales. However, it is questionable to what extent this approach is consistent with EU law:

1.  It has been argued that for courts in the CISG Contracting States, the CISG (as uniform substantive law) eliminates under its Article 1(1)(a) the need to recourse to conflict of laws analysis to determine whether it applies (see eg Peter Winship, ‘Private International Law and the U.N. Sales Convention’, (1988) 21 Cornell International Law Journal 487, p.520). According to this view, courts in the EU Member States which are also the CISG Contracting States do not first have to resort to their private international law because, where the CISG is applicable, there is no ‘situation involving a conflict of laws’ within the meaning of Article 1(1) of Rome I (see eg Thomas Kadner Graziano, ‘The CISG Before the Courts of Non-Contracting States? Take Foreign Sales Law as You Find it’ (2012) 13 Yearbook of Private International Law 165, p.166). However, from a different perspective, the fact that there is uniform substantive law to apply to a case does not mean that there is no situation involving a conflict of laws in the given case. It rather means that the conflict of laws is resolved in the given case partially or fully by the application of that uniform substantive law. The question of ‘as part of which law that uniform substantive law applies to the given case’ would still first require a conflict of laws process (for a similar alternative interpretation of Article 1(1)(a) of the CISG, see Arthur Taylor von Mehren, Explanatory Report on the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contracts for the International Sale of Goods, Proceedings of the Extraordinary Session of October 1985, para. 192). This is to be the approach to follow unless the forum’s private international law provides otherwise and gives precedence to uniform substantive law rules over conflict of laws rules (for such a provision, see eg the Turkish Private International Law and International Civil Procedure Act (numbered 5718 and dated 2007) which gives, in its Article 1(2), precedence to the provisions of international agreements to which Turkey is a party over the Act).

2. It has been argued that the CISG’s provisions on its sphere of application take precedence over the conflict of law rules in Rome I according to Article 25(1) regulating the Rome I’s relationship with existing international conventions. However, an existing international convention to which one or more EU Member States are parties at the time when Rome I is adopted can only take precedence over the rules of Rome I under Article 25 if the convention in question lays down conflict of law rules relating to contractual obligations. The CISG does not lay down conflict of law rules relating to contractual obligations and accordingly it is not listed as per Article 26 of Rome I among conventions that are referred to under Article 25(1). To assist with comparison, one example of such an international convention in the context of sale of goods which could prevail over the rules of Rome I under Article 25 of Rome I is the 1955 Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to International Sale of Goods as this convention does lay down conflict of law rules relating to contractual obligations.

3. It has been argued that uniform substantive law is more specific than private international law and therefore the former should prevail over the latter pursuant to the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali. However, this principle should come into play where there is more than one law/provision dealing with the same matter (eg the CISG and national substantive sales laws in relation to matters of sale of goods contracts). This is not the case regarding the CISG and Rome I as these instruments deal with different matters.

Furthermore, from the perspective of EU law, it is questionable whether the argument that the CISG takes precedence over Rome I is consistent with the supremacy of EU law and the direct effect of EU regulations given that the CISG is not a convention to which the EU is a party and therefore not internalised in the EU system. EU law, in principle, cannot be overridden by an extraneous source unless that extraneous source is internalised.

In terms of the relationship between Rome I and the CISG for EU Member States party to the CISG, an alternative view here to the prevailing view suggests a two-step approach. The first step is that, if the forum is located in an EU Member State, a state law is determined as the applicable law in a given case under the rules of Rome I. The second step is that if that law includes the CISG, then the applicability of the CISG (as part of that law) to the given case is determined under the rules of the CISG. The CISG may become applicable as part of that law through its Article 1(1)(a) if the places of business of both parties are in Contracting States or through its Article 1(1)(b) even if only one or none of these places is in Contracting States (on how the CISG interacts with state law, see also Benjamin Hayward, Bruno Zeller and Camilla Baasch Andersen, ‘The CISG and the United Kingdom- Exploring Coherency and Private International Law’ (2018) 67 International and Comparative Law Quarterly 607).

One question that arises in this context is whether it matters in practice if a court starts the analysis with Rome I or the CISG. In cases where the applicable law is to be determined according to objective choice of law rules under Article 4 of Rome I, the outcome might differ depending on the approach that the court takes if the applicable law is a law of a non-Contracting State (see generally Peter Winship, cited above, p.519 and see, specifically on Rome I and the CISG, Sir Richard Plender, QC & Michael Wilderspin, The European Private International Law of Obligations, 5th edn, Sweet & Maxwell, 2019, paras 1-047 and 1-048).

For example, if the sales contact is between parties with places of business in the CISG Contracting States (eg Belgium and Sweden), and if the court in the EU starts the analysis with the CISG, the court will find that the CISG applies to the contract as per Article 1(1)(a) of the CISG. In the same example, if the court starts the analysis with Rome I and determines that the objectively applicable law is a law of a non-Contracting State, eg law of England and Wales, which would be something rare but possible via the operation of the escape clause in Article 4(3) of Rome I, the court will find that the UK’s Sale of Goods Act 1979 will apply to the contract (not the CISG). If the outcome might differ depending on a court’s approach, this would potentially also give scope for forum shopping.

The First Step: Application of Rome I to the EU-AstraZeneca APA

In the light of the above analysis, as the first step, the law applicable to the APA is to be determined under the Rome I Regulation.

The APA is not one of the types of contracts for which Rome I provides special choice of law rules between Articles 5 and 8, and therefore the applicable law of the APA will be determined according to the general choice of law rules under Article 3 (on freedom of choice) and Article 4 (on the applicable law in the absence of choice) of Rome I.

Under Article 3 of Rome I, a contract is governed by the law chosen by the parties and this choice can be express or clearly demonstrated by the terms of the contract or the circumstances of the case. The APA includes an express choice of law agreement in Section 18.4 according to which it is governed by the laws of Belgium. Provided that this choice of law agreement is valid in its form and substance under Articles 10 and 11 of Rome I and raises no issues of legal capacity (to which Rome I does not apply as per Article 1(2)(f)), Belgian law is the law applicable to the APA and governs the matters that fall into the scope of the applicable law set out under Article 12. Since renvoi is excluded under Article 20 of Rome I, this means that substantive law rules of Belgian law will be applied to the APA.

Belgium is a party to the CISG, and therefore the application of the laws of Belgium (as agreed by the parties in the choice of law agreement in Section 18.4 of the APA) includes the rules of the CISG.

The Second Step: Applicability of the CISG to the EU-AstraZeneca APA

It follows that the CISG is applicable to the extent that a given dispute, which may arise under or in connection with the APA or the legal relationships established by the APA, falls into the scope of the CISG. In such cases, the CISG itself will not be strictly speaking the applicable (or governing) law of the APA, but it will apply as part of the applicable (or governing) law of the APA which is Belgian law.

The extent of the CISG’s applicability in this context would further require a substantive law analysis as to (i) whether the APA is a type of sales contract that falls into the scope of the CISG (see eg Application of the CISG to International Government Procurement of Goods by Cesar Pereira), (ii) whether a given dispute will fall into the scope of the CISG (as the CISG does not deal with all types of disputes that a sales contract may give rise to), (iii) whether any relevant state reservations exist, and (iv) whether the APA provides otherwise (which would mean under Article 6 of the CISG that the parties have derogated from or varied the effect of CISG’s provisions).

As a concluding remark, it is also worth noting that the CISG in essence is a safety net for sales for which contractual parties have not utilised freedom of contract and party autonomy. For other sales, the CISG’s utility and also scope of application is much more limited in practice and, in some cases, even excluded by the parties as allowed under Article 6 of the CISG.

In a note verbale of 22 June 2021, recently transmitted to the Swiss Federal Council as Depository of the Lugano II Convention, the European Commission has notified that “the European Union is not in a position to give its consent to invite the United Kingdom to accede to the Lugano Convention”.

The note verbale may be found on the website of the Swiss Federal Department of Foreign Affairs (EDA in German), https://www.eda.admin.ch/dam/eda/fr/documents/aussenpolitik/voelkerrecht/autres-conventions/Lugano2/20210701-LUG-ann-EU.pdf

On July 20, 2021 (14.00 – 19.00), Università degli Studi, Milan will host (in streaming) the Annual Conference of the EU-funded project Jean Monnet Module on “Multilevel, Multiparty and Multisector Cross-Border Litigation in Europe”.

The topic of this year – “Incentives and Challenges to Transnational Access to Justice” – will be addressed by distinguished panelists in two Round-Tables on, respectively, Third-party Funding in International Dispute Resolution and E-Justice in International Dispute Resolution.

The event is organized with the support of the Eramus+Programme of the European Union, the Centre of Research on European and Transnational Dispute Settlement (EUTraDiS), the European Court of Arbitration (CEA) and the Jean Monnet Chair on EU Health Legal Framework and Competition Law (EHCL).

Please find here the complete programme.

Registration is due by 15 July 2021, by completing and submitting this registration form (also referred to in the flyer).

For any information, please contact Prof. Albert Henke (albert.henke@unimi.it)

This is the fourth post of an online symposium on the recent judgment of the CJEU in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v. BP after the posts of Matthias Lehmann, Laura van Bochove and Matthias Haentjens and Geert van Calster.

The author of this post is Enrique Vallines, who is Professor of Procedural Law at the Complutense University of Madrid and a Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg.

Just a few days after Vereniging van Effectenbezitters v BP (C-709/19) was made public, I had the opportunity to express my views on the decision on an EU Law Live Op-Ed. After the three stimulating EAPIL blogposts referred above, Prof. Gilles Cuniberti has kindly invited me to expand a bit on my critique to the reasoning of the judgment, probably because I seem to be a bit of an outlier here. My sincere gratitude to him and to all the board of Editors of the EAPIL Blog.

On the Judgment Itself

Effectenbezitters is about establishing jurisdiction under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation on the basis of the determination of the place where the harm occurred (the so-called, in German, Erfolgsort) in a case of purely financial damage, i.e. any loss of money with no connection with a tangible object (VKI v Volkswagen, C‑343/19, paras 32-35).

In previous judgments, the CJEU had used the fiction that financial damage occurs where the (bank or investment) account reflecting the damage is held. However, the Court added that the said fiction is not enough to establish jurisdiction under Article 7(2); in addition, looking at Recitals 15 and 16, the Court requires that ‘other specific circumstances’ confirm that the case is sufficiently connected to the place in question (principle of proximity) and that the forum in question was foreseeable for the defendant (principle of predictability).

In my opinion, Effectenbezitters is no exception to this jurisprudence. Firstly, in para 32, the CJEU clearly suggests that the courts in the Netherlands might have jurisdiction under Article 7(2), ‘on the basis of the place where the damage occurred’, because jurisdiction may be allocated to the courts where the bank (or investment institution) holding that account is established. This is reflected in the operative part of the judgment, where the Court acknowledges that the case concerned the ‘direct occurrence in an investment account of purely financial loss resulting from investment decisions’.

Secondly, in paragraphs 33-35 of Effectenbezitters, the Court moves on to consider the other specific circumstances, beginning with those relating to the predictability of the forum. At this point – the assessment of the predictability of the forum -, I believe that – contrary to what Prof. Lehman, Prof. van Bochove and Prof. Haentjens seem to indicate in their EAPIL blogposts – the Court does not put the direct focus on the place where BP shares were listed or admitted to trading; nor did the Court even consider the place where the shares had been acquired or sold (an approach that, by the way, would have been similar to the approach in VKI v Volkswagen, where jurisdiction under Article 7(2) was attributed to the courts where the diesel vehicles had been purchased). Instead, the direct focus of the Court when assessing the predictability of the forum was the place where BP had reporting obligations, ie, the place where BP was subject to the obligation to disclose the information whose lack or inaccuracy was at the basis of the cause of action of the plaintiff. This conclusion is also confirmed by the operative part of the judgment, where only the ‘statutory reporting obligations’ are mentioned, without any reference to the place of listing, trading, acquisition or sale.

Against this background, to my mind, the reasoning of the Court may be summarized as follows: (i) since the claim is based on the lack or the inaccuracy of specific information that BP was obliged to provide in the UK and in Germany, BP could have reasonably foreseen lawsuits related to the said information in the UK or in Germany, but not in the Netherlands nor in any other EU forum; and (ii), for this reason, despite accepting the fiction that the purely financial damage inflicted to the Dutch investors occurred in the Netherlands, finally, the Dutch courts were not predictable for the defendant and, hence, they do not qualify as a competent court under Article 7(2) and Recitals 15 and 16.

On the Precedents Used

To support this reasoning, the CJEU turns to Kolassa (C-375/13, paras 54-57, to be interpreted as indicated in Universal, C-12/15, para 37, and the Opinion of AG Szpunar in this latter case, para 45) and Löber (C‑304/17, paras 26-36).

In both cases, similarly to the case of Effectenbezitters, an investor had also claimed compensation for purely financial damages based on the inaccuracy of financial information – the information contained in a prospectus required for securities to be admitted to trading in a specific State. In these two cases, the Court argued (i) that the place where the investors held their accounts might indeed qualify as the place where the harm occurred for the purposes of establishing jurisdiction under Article 7(2); and (ii) that the forum for that place was predictable because the information whose inaccuracy was at the basis of the cause of action had been specifically distributed at that place as a result of the legal obligation to submit a prospectus. Thus, in Kolassa and Löber, the Court took the fact that reporting obligations were due in a specific Member State as an indication of the predictability of the jurisdiction of the courts of that Member State. Shortly put, the equation of the Court was: reporting obligations = predictability.

In Effectenbezitters, the Court tried to apply the same logic, but the other way around. It certainly looked at the place of reporting obligations and, since it found none in the Netherlands, it concluded that the Dutch courts were not a predictable forum. Thus, it took the fact that BP had no reporting obligations in the Netherlands as an indication that the Netherlandish courts were not a predictable forum. In short, the equation of the Court was, now, the following: no reporting obligations = no predictability.

On my Critique

My main criticism of Effectenbezitters is that this second equation (no reporting obligations = no predictability) is not at all convincing in the current EU regulatory context. In my opinion, the logic applied in Kolassa and Löber does not work the other way around within the EU. I find it acceptable to conclude that the fact that there exist reporting obligations in a Member State may be taken as an indication that this Member State is a predictable forum for any litigation relating to such obligations. Yet, I challenge the argument whereby the lack of reporting obligations in a Member State necessarily entails that that Member State is not a predictable forum. The way I see things, a person may have to report information in a specific Member State and, nevertheless, it may still predict litigation related to that information in another Member State so long as the citizens and companies of the other Member State were also legal addressees of the information in question.

This is exactly what, in my view, happened in Effectenbezitters. BP was subject to reporting obligations in the UK and Germany only, but the legal addressees of the information were all the investors in all the EU Member States. Within the regulatory context under the Transparency Directive 2004/109 and the Market Abuse Directive 2003/6 (today, replaced by the Market Abuse Regulation 596/2014), BP had to make available periodical information (eg, annual financial reports), as well as any particular piece of information that was likely to have a significant effect on the prices of its shares. Even though the information had to be published via a ‘mechanism’ which had been ‘officially appointed’ by the British and the German authorities, the truth is that this mechanism had to ensure that the information was made available in a manner that guaranteed the ‘effective dissemination to the public throughout the Community’. See, in this regard, Article 21(1) Directive 2004/109, in relation to Article 2(1)(k) of the said Directive and Articles 1(1) and 6 of the Market Abuse Directive 2003/6 (today, Articles 7 and 17 of the Market Abuse Regulation 596/2014); also, in the same vein, the current wording of Article 22 of Directive 2004/109 emphasizes that the information must be accessible ‘at Union level’.

Thus, when BP provided – or failed to provide – information in the UK and in Germany under the EU rules on transparency and market abuse, the company knew that the information due had to reach all EU investors – ‘all the public throughout the Community’, as Article 21(1) of Directive 2004/109 puts it. Consequently, BP could have perfectly foreseen that any of the legal addressees of the information could have made investment decisions from their home Member States on the basis of that information. And this, in my view, entails that BP could have also perfectly predicted that information-related litigation could have taken place in any of the EU Member States from where those investment decisions were made.

To sum up, contrary to Court’s reasoning in Effectenbezitters, I find that, within the EU, it is inaccurate to say that an issuer of securities cannot predict the forum where it does not have reporting obligations in that forum. Such an issuer is aware – or, at least, must be aware –  of the fact that EU law requires that the reported information reaches all the citizens and companies across all Member States, irrespective of where and how the information is provided. As a result, the issuer must count on the possibility that the information is used in any Member State, as well as on the possibility of damages – and subsequent lawsuits – arising out of such a use in any Member State.

Looking Ahead

That said, I should add that I understand the concerns about the need to limit jurisdiction under Article 7(2) and to avoid an EU-wide jurisdiction to hear cases relating to purely financial damage at the place where the plaintiff holds her bank account. But I believe that a flawed argument – such as the one used in Effectenbezitters – should not be the means to achieve such a goal. Instead, other avenues could be explored, preferably by the EU law-maker, with a view to an amendment of Brussels I-bis that may provide more certainty on the rule of special jurisdiction applying to matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict.

Andrea Bonomi and Patrick Wautelet, with the cooperation of Ilaria Pretelli, Eva Lein, Guillaume Kessler, Sara Migliorini and Konstaninos Rokas published Le droit européen des relations patrimoniales de couple (Bruylant). This is an extensive commentary (1368 pages) on the EU Regulations on Matrimonial Property (2016/1103) and on the Property Consequences of Registered Partnerships (2016/1104). These regulations came about through the process of enhanced cooperation and are in force in eighteen of the twenty-seven EU Member States.

The book is similar to the Commentary on the EU’s Succession Regulation (650/2015), Le droit européen des successions by the same main authors.

The book starts with an elaborate introduction which sets the context and gathers information on the preparatory steps towards the regulations (the kind of thing we miss since we don’t have an official report on the Regulations). It refers the reader to various studies and opinions that were produced in the preparatory phase. The introduction further sets out the main characteristics of the Regulations, which the authors have identified as the following:

• one single attachment;
• unchangeability of the applicable law;
• preference for party autonomy;
• coordination with other EU regulations on related matters;
• dissociation between jurisdiction and applicable law.

The authors also point out the drawbacks of some of the choices that the legislator made, such as that courts often have to apply foreign law, and that different legal systems might apply to divorce, maintenance, succession and matrimonial property if couples move across borders.

After an explanation of the scope of application (material, temporal and spatial), the commentary follows an article-by-article approach. Every article is discussed in detail, in the context of  legislation and case law (on the EU and Member State levels) and a wealth of legal literature. The reader is offered sound theory combined with practical examples in the form of (fictitious) cases. The makes the book a useful tool for practitioners, judges, notaries and academics alike.