Droit international général

At the beginning of 2015, the publication of the 4th edition of Thomas Rauscher’s commentary on European private international law (including international civil procedure), “Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht (EuZPR/EuIPR)”, has started. So far, the volumes II (covering the EU Regulation on the European Order for Uncontested Claims, the Regulation on the European Order for Payment, the Small Claims Regulation, the Regulation on the European Account Preservation Order, the Service of Process and the Taking of Evidence Regulations as well as the Insolvency Regulation and the Hague Convention on Jurisdiction Agreements) and IV (covering, inter alia, Brussels IIbis, the Maintenance Regulation and the new Regulation on mutual recognition of protective measures in civil matters) have been published. The various Regulations have been commented on by Marianne Andrae, Kathrin Binder, Urs Peter Gruber, Bettina Heiderhoff, Jan von Hein, Christoph A. Kern, Kathrin Kroll-Ludwigs, Gerald Mäsch, Steffen Pabst, Thomas Rauscher, Martin Schimrick, Istvan Varga, Matthias Weller and Denise Wiedemann. Further volumes will cover Rome I and II as well as the Brussels Ibis Regulation. This German-language commentary has established itself internationally as a leading, in-depth treatise on European private international law, dealing with the subject from a comprehensive, functional point of view and detached from domestic codifications. For more details, see here.

On 15 June 2015, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorising certain Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Andorra to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and an analogous decision regarding the acceptance of the accession of Singapore to the same Convention (publication of both decisions in the Official Journal is pending).

The two decisions rest on Opinion 1/13 of 14 October 2014. In this Opinion, the ECJ — having regard to Regulation No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa) — stated that the declarations of acceptance under the Hague Child Abduction Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

Before the ECJ rendered this Opinion, some Member States had already accepted the accession of Andorra and Singapore. Presumably, they did so on the assumption that the European Union was not vested with an exclusive competence in this respect and that, accordingly, each Member State was free to decide whether to become bound by the Convention vis-à-vis individual acceding third countries, as provided by Article 38(3) of the Convention itself (for an updated overview of the accessions to the Convention and the acceptances thereof, see this page in the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law).

The two Council decisions of 15 June 2015 are addressed only to the Member States that have not already accepted the accession of Andorra and Singapore, respectively. In fact, the Council preferred not to question in light of Opinion 1/13 the legitimacy of ‘old’ declarations made by Member States, and noted, with pragmatism, that a decision regarding the acceptance of the two accessions was only needed with respect to the remaining Member States.

In two identical statements included in the minutes of the above Council decisions (see here and here), the European Commission regretted that the decisions “cover only the Member States which have not yet accepted Andorra and Singapore”, so that “the Member States which proceeded to accept third States’ accessions in the past are not covered by any authorisation by the Union, which is in principle necessary pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU” (according to the latter provision, “when the Treaties confer on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts”).

In its statements, the Commission also stressed “that any future acceptance by Member States of the accession of a third country must be covered by a prior authorisation”.

On 15 June 2015, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorising certain Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Andorra to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and an analogous decision regarding the acceptance of the accession of Singapore to the same Convention (publication of both decisions in the Official Journal is pending).

The two decisions rest on Opinion 1/13 of 14 October 2014. In this Opinion, the ECJ — having regard to Regulation No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa) — stated that the declarations of acceptance under the Hague Child Abduction Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

Before the ECJ rendered this Opinion, some Member States had already accepted the accession of Andorra and Singapore. Presumably, they did so on the assumption that the European Union was not vested with an exclusive competence in this respect and that, accordingly, each Member State was free to decide whether to become bound by the Convention vis-à-vis individual acceding third countries, as provided by Article 38(3) of the Convention itself (for an updated overview of the accessions to the Convention and the acceptances thereof, see this page in the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law).

The two Council decisions of 15 June 2015 are addressed only to the Member States that have not already accepted the accession of Andorra and Singapore, respectively. In fact, the Council preferred not to question in light of Opinion 1/13 the legitimacy of ‘old’ declarations made by Member States, and noted, with pragmatism, that a decision regarding the acceptance of the two accessions was only needed with respect to the remaining Member States.

In two identical statements included in the minutes of the above Council decisions (see here and here), the European Commission regretted that the decisions “cover only the Member States which have not yet accepted Andorra and Singapore”, so that “the Member States which proceeded to accept third States’ accessions in the past are not covered by any authorisation by the Union, which is in principle necessary pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU” (according to the latter provision, “when the Treaties confer on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts”).

In its statements, the Commission also stressed “that any future acceptance by Member States of the accession of a third country must be covered by a prior authorisation”.

A conference organised by AIGA, the Italian Association of Young Lawyers, will take place on 2 July 2015 in Brussels, in the Paul-Henri Spaak building of the European Parliament, to discuss the legal aspects of the Digital Single Market (the creation of which is one of the ten priorities of the European Commission presided by Jean-Claude Juncker).

The conference, which is titled Building the legal infrastructure of the Digital Single Market, will consist of three sessions.

The first session, Setting the policy framework, will be chaired by Hans Schulte-Nölke of the University of Osnabrück. It will feature presentations by Gintare Surblyte of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich (Internet and Regulation: the debate on Net Neutrality) and Oreste Pollicino of the Bocconi University of Milan (The sense of the Court of Justice of the European Union for digital privacy: interpretation or manipulation?).

Michael Lehmann of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will chair the second session, devoted to A European law for digital contents: the challenge of harmonisation. It will feature presentations by Johannes Druschel of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Digital contents under the European Sales Law) and Alberto De Franceschi of the University of Ferrara (The issue of digital contents after the Consumer Rights Directive – The ‘button solution’ and the right of withdrawal).

Under the title Managing legal diversity within the Digital Single Market, the third session, chaired by Francisco Garcimartín Alférez of the Universidad Autónoma of Madrid, will address some private international law issues relating to the functioning of the Digital Single Market. Presentations will be delivered by Lorna E. Gillies of the University of Leicester (Cross-border online digital service contracts: Which court decides ? What law applies?) and Pietro Franzina of the University of Ferrara (Localising digital torts: settled and open issues).

Admittance is free, but, for security reasons, those wishing to attend the conference must send an e-mail by Wednesday, 24 June 2015 to Mario Galluppi di Cirella, Vice-President of the AIGA Foundation, at mariodicirella@hotmail.com. The seating capacity of the conference room is limited. Successful applicants will receive a confirmation by 27 June 2015.

The poster of the conference may be downloaded here.

A conference organised by AIGA, the Italian Association of Young Lawyers, will take place on 2 July 2015 in Brussels, in the Paul-Henri Spaak building of the European Parliament, to discuss the legal aspects of the Digital Single Market (the creation of which is one of the ten priorities of the European Commission presided by Jean-Claude Juncker).

The conference, which is titled Building the legal infrastructure of the Digital Single Market, will consist of three sessions.

The first session, Setting the policy framework, will be chaired by Hans Schulte-Nölke of the University of Osnabrück. It will feature presentations by Gintare Surblyte of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich (Internet and Regulation: the debate on Net Neutrality) and Oreste Pollicino of the Bocconi University of Milan (The sense of the Court of Justice of the European Union for digital privacy: interpretation or manipulation?).

Michael Lehmann of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will chair the second session, devoted to A European law for digital contents: the challenge of harmonisation. It will feature presentations by Johannes Druschel of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Digital contents under the European Sales Law) and Alberto De Franceschi of the University of Ferrara (The issue of digital contents after the Consumer Rights Directive – The ‘button solution’ and the right of withdrawal).

Under the title Managing legal diversity within the Digital Single Market, the third session, chaired by Francisco Garcimartín Alférez of the Universidad Autónoma of Madrid, will address some private international law issues relating to the functioning of the Digital Single Market. Presentations will be delivered by Lorna E. Gillies of the University of Leicester (Cross-border online digital service contracts: Which court decides ? What law applies?) and Pietro Franzina of the University of Ferrara (Localising digital torts: settled and open issues).

Admittance is free, but, for security reasons, those wishing to attend the conference must send an e-mail by Wednesday, 24 June 2015 to Mario Galluppi di Cirella, Vice-President of the AIGA Foundation, at mariodicirella@hotmail.com. The seating capacity of the conference room is limited. Successful applicants will be notified by 27 June 2015.

The poster of the conference may be downloaded here.

It is my pleasure to announce the release of this work aiming at the preparation of a Model Law OHADAC of private international law. The project has been carried out thanks to the cooperation between ACP Legal, based in Guadeloupe (France), and the entity Iprolex, SL, Madrid, financed by European funds from the INTERREG project for actions in the field of harmonization of business law in the Caribbean.

The initiative began with the establishment of a team led by experts from Spain, France and Cuba: Prof. Dr. Santiago Álvarez González (Santiago de Compostela), Prof. Dr. Bertrand Ancel (Paris II), Prof. Dr. Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio (Complutense, Madrid), Prof. Dr. Rodolfo Dávalos Fernández (La Habana), and Prof. Dr. José Carlos Fernandez Rozas, (Complutense, Madrid). In carrying out this ambitious project Iprolex, SL has also benefited from the support of a large group of specialists who have worked along three distinct stages for a period of over a year.

In the book the preparatory works in view of the Model Law are preceded by in-depth studies on the various systems involved: Jose Maria DEL RIO VILLO, Rhonson SALIM and James WHITE: “Private International Law in the Commonwealth Caribbean and British Overseas Territories”; Bertrand ANCEL, “Départements et collectivités territoriales françaises dans l’espace caraïbe”; Lukas RASS–MASSON, “Enquête sur le droit international privé des territoires de l’Ohadac – l’héritage des Pays–Bas”; José Luis MARÍN FUENTES, “Caracteres generales del sistema de Derecho internacional privado colombiano”, Patricia OREJUDO PRIETO DE LOS MOZOS, “Le droit international privé colombien et le projet de Loi modèle de l’Ohadac”; José Carlos FERNÁNDEZ ROZAS y Rodolfo DÁVALOS FERNÁNDEZ, “El Derecho internacional privado de Cuba”; Enrique LINARES RODRÍGUEZ, “Le droit international prive du Nicaragua et le projet de loi modèle de l’Ohadac”; Ana FERNÁNDEZ PÉREZ, “El Derecho internacional privado de Puerto Rico: un modelo de americanización malgré lui”; José Carlos FERNÁNDEZ ROZAS, “Pourquoi la République Dominicaine a–t–elle besoin d’une loi de droit international prive ?”; Claudia MADRID MARTÍNEZ, “Características generales del sistema de Derecho internacional privado venezolano”.

The volume, written in Spanish, French and English and conceived as a combination of structured reflections and general proposals at a time, aims to achieve two main objectives. The first one is to consistently gather quantitative data and qualitative information in view of an assessment of already existing instruments that may be useful for optimizing the codification of private international law in the Caribbean geographical context. The second objective is to identify the need, social or institutional demands that must be met by a regulation, evaluating its legal and substantive feasibility and setting up the materials, steps and reports which are deemed appropriate to reach the final aim.

The great political and economic importance of the proposed Model Law, together with the fact that the regulation is complex and very broad, suggests that the involvement of stakeholders (through lobbies or directly), being crucial, may prove insufficient or incomplete. For this reason, public dissemination of the Draft is essential in order to make it known and to invite all agents or individuals interested in participating to express their views, opinions or propositions about a possible adjustment of the work while in progress. The following email address has been set for this purposes: iprolex@iprolex.com.

The deliberations that will start after the release of Draft will be vital: they will provide a sufficient perspective of the views and concerns expressed, thus allowing moving on to elaborate a final proposal, which will then be submitted to the corresponding legislative process.

Armonización del Derecho Internacional Privado en el Caribe.  L’harmonisation du Droit International Privé dans le Caraïbe – Harmonization of Private International Law in the Caribbean. Estudios y materiales preparatorios y proyecto de Ley Modelo OHADAC de derecho internacional privado de 2014, Madrid, Iprolex, 20015, 687 pp. ISBN: 978-84-941055-2-4.

Professor Catherine Kessedjian, President of the French Branch of the International Law Association (ILA), is organising an international conference on “INTERNATIONAL LAW AND EUROPEAN UNION LAW – Harmony and Dissonance in International and European Business Law Practice” in conjunction with the Swiss Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Academy of European Law (ERA) which will take place on 24 and 25 September 2015 in Trier (Germany).
The aim of this conference is to provide legal practitioners with a comprehensive overview and high-level discussions on key topics and recent developments affecting their daily practice at the crossroads of international law and EU law.
Key topics include:
– EU/Member States and international law: who does what? Issues relating to international negotiations, international responsibility, representation in international litigation, international law as a standard of review in CJEU case-law;
– The international dispute resolution mechanism jigsaw: Litigation before European courts: private parties’ access to the ECtHR and the CJEU, equivalent protection system;
– Brussels I and the arbitration exception, primacy of the New York Convention, parallel proceedings and conflicting court and arbitral decisions, recent EU case-law (C-536/13, Gazprom and C-352/13, CDC), 2015 entry into force of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements: changes and coordination;
– Relationship between ISDS and national judicial systems, protection of the State’s right to regulate and legitimate public policy objectives, establishment and functioning of arbitral tribunals, review of ISDS decisions by bilateral or multilateral appellate mechanisms;
– UN, EU and State sanctions: role and effectiveness, (extra-)territorial scope, impact on fundamental rights and judicial review by the ECtHR (Nada and Al Dulimi) and by the CJEU (Kadi and recent cases), impact on international sales contracts.

It should be noted that the conference fee for members of the ILA is reduced to 100 €.

Further information is available here and here.

Con sentenza depositata il 15 giugno 2015, il Tribunale di Firenze si è pronunciato su una domanda di scioglimento del matrimonio presentata con ricorso congiunto da una donna italiana e dal marito di cittadinanza italiana e marocchina.

I coniugi — non previamente separati, senza prole — avevano dato atto nella domanda di aver rinunciato, l’uno nei confronti dell’altro, a qualsiasi pretesa economica avente causa nel vincolo coniugale.

La decisione dedica poche battute alla questione della competenza giurisdizionale. La giurisdizione, si afferma, “appartiene al giudice italiano dal momento che la vita familiare si è svolta in Italia e che il marito ha la doppia cittadinanza, mentre la moglie è cittadina italiana”.

Questa terminologia sembra evocare gli articoli 31 e 32 della legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato. Tali norme, in realtà, sono prive di rilievo ai fini della verifica della giurisdizione in un caso come quello in esame. L’art. 31 della legge è irrilevante perché si tratta di una norma di per sé deputata a risolvere un conflitto di leggi, non a delimitare l’ambito della giurisdizione italiana. L’art. 32 è irrilevante perché, negli Stati membri dell’Unione europea, il ricorso alle norme interne che disciplinano la giurisdizione in materia matrimoniale è oramai consentito solo alle condizioni di cui agli articoli 6 e 7 del regolamento n. 2201/2003 (Bruxelles II bis), estranee al caso di specie.

La conclusione cui perviene il Tribunale, in punto di giurisdizione, coincide comunque con quella desumibile dal regolamento ora citato, e segnatamente dall’art. 3, par. 1, lett. a), trovandosi in Italia, come si evince dalla sentenza, la residenza (abituale?) di entrambi i coniugi (si noti che, in caso di domanda congiunta, il giudice adito può dichiararsi provvisto di giurisdizione quando risieda abitualmente nel paese del foro anche uno solo dei coniugi: così il quarto trattino della disposizione menzionata da ultimo).

Affermatosi competente a pronunciarsi sulla domanda di scioglimento del matrimonio, il Tribunale di Firenze non sembra interrogarsi sulla propria legittimazione a prendere cognizione anche dei connessi profili alimentari.

Il quesito, ad avviso di chi scrive, avrebbe invece meritato di essere affrontato in modo specifico. Sembra infatti di capire che i coniugi — lungi dall’escludere dall’oggetto del processo, con le proprie reciproche rinunce, gli aspetti patrimoniali della crisi — abbiano chiesto al giudice di dichiarare lo scioglimento del vincolo alle condizioni economiche da essi pattuite. Ne è prova il dispositivo della sentenza, che pronuncia il divorzio, per l’appunto, “alle condizioni stabilite dalle parti con il ricorso”.

Una simile statuizione presuppone la sussistenza in capo al giudice adito di uno specifico titolo di giurisdizione, ulteriore e diverso rispetto a quello ricavato dal regolamento Bruxelles II bis, dato che tale regolamento espressamente esclude le obbligazioni alimentari, nel suo art. 1, par. 3, lett. e), dalla propria sfera di applicazione materiale.

Anche sotto questo aspetto, peraltro, la decisione fiorentina perviene a una conclusione conforme alle norme pertinenti, da identificarsi nel regolamento n. 4/2009 sulle obbligazioni alimentari, risultando perfezionato nel caso di specie più di uno dei titoli di giurisdizione previsti in tale strumento.

Venendo ai conflitti di leggi, il Tribunale identifica anzitutto la normativa pertinente nel regolamento n. 1259/2010 sulla legge applicabile al divorzio e alla separazione personale (Roma III).

Si legge nelle motivazioni che, nei giorni immediatamente precedenti la presentazione del ricorso, i coniugi avevano convenuto, tramite scrittura privata, di assoggettare il divorzio alla legge marocchina.

Il Tribunale, rilevata la validità formale dell’accordo ai sensi dell’art. 7 del regolamento Roma III, ritiene che la scelta della legge marocchina rientri fra le opzioni offerte ai coniugi dall’art. 5 dello stesso regolamento, prevedendosi in particolare all’art. 5, par. 1, lett. c), che una scelta di legge possa cadere, in questo campo, su “la legge dello Stato di cui uno dei coniugi ha la cittadinanza al momento della conclusione dell’accordo”.

Sul punto, la sentenza non sembra attribuire alcun rilievo al fatto che il marito, al momento dell’accordo, possedesse, oltre alla cittadinanza marocchina, anche la cittadinanza italiana.

Il passaggio avrebbe forse meritato una riflessione. Il regolamento Roma III omette, infatti, di chiarire come vadano intesi i riferimenti che esso fa allo status civitatis dei coniugi allorché questi possiedano due o più cittadinanze. Nel considerando n. 22 del regolamento si legge che quando, “ai fini dell’applicazione della legge di uno Stato, il presente regolamento si riferisce alla cittadinanza quale fattore di collegamento, la problematica dei casi di cittadinanza plurima dovrebbe essere disciplinata dalla legislazione nazionale, nel pieno rispetto dei principi generali dell’Unione europea”.

Difficile, alla luce di ciò, in un caso di doppia cittadinanza che coinvolga la cittadinanza di uno Stato membro e quella di uno Stato terzo, eludere in Italia la questione della rilevanza, o meno, dell’art. 19, comma 2, della legge n. 218/1995, ai sensi del quale, se la persona a cui è riferito il criterio di collegamento possiede più cittadinanze, “si applica la legge di quello tra gli Stati di appartenenza con il quale essa ha il collegamento più stretto”, con la precisazione che, se tra queste cittadinanze vi è quella italiana, “questa prevale”.

Ricercando nel diritto marocchino le norme che fissano i presupposti dello scioglimento del matrimonio, il Tribunale di Firenze rileva che l’art. 114 del Codice marocchino della persona e della famiglia (Mudawwana), del 2004, consente ai coniugi di chiedere di comune accordo lo scioglimento del vincolo coniugale sul solo fondamento della comune volontà di porre fine alla relazione. Il divorzio, in base alle norme marocchine considerate dal Tribunale, può essere chiesto con o senza condizioni, purché tali condizioni non siano in contrasto con le norme del Codice e non siano incompatibili con gli interessi dei figli.

Il diritto del Marocco, osserva il Tribunale, prefigura dunque la possibilità di un immediato scioglimento del matrimonio senza preventiva separazione e senza che occorra accertare la sussistenza di “motivi specifici che giustifichino la recisione del vincolo coniugale”.

La decisione fiorentina ritiene di poter trarre dal diritto marocchino anche le indicazioni pertinenti per pronunciarsi sulle condizioni economiche del divorzio (e dunque, nella specie, sull’ammissibilità delle reciproche rinunce fatte constare dai coniugi). Senonché, analogamente al regolamento Bruxelles II bis, anche il regolamento Roma III dichiara, all’art. 1, par. 2, lett. g), di non volersi occupare di obbligazioni alimentari, lasciando ogni determinazione in proposito al citato regolamento n. 4/2009 (che la sentenza non cita neppure a questo proposito). Quest’ultimo, per quanto concerne i conflitti di leggi, rinvia, facendolo proprio, al protocollo dell’Aja del 23 novembre 2007 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni alimentari.

Il protocollo dell’Aja, all’art. 8, par. 1, lett. a), permette alle parti del rapporto alimentare di assoggettare convenzionalmente la propria relazione alla legge del paese di cittadinanza di uno di loro (qui il riferimento è a “the law of any State of which either party is a national”, così risultando superato ogni dubbio circa la possibilità di designare una qualsiasi delle leges patriae di uno dei coniugi, quale che sia l’orientamento del diritto internazionale privato del foro circa il funzionamento del criterio della cittadinanza in caso di bipolidi). Non si può dunque escludere che nel caso di specie il Tribunale di Firenze possa aver rinvenuto nell’atto di optio iuris formato dai coniugi agli effetti dell’art. 5 del regolamento Roma III anche una scelta di legge ai sensi dell’art. 8 del protocollo (peraltro, dato che il protocollo sembra ammettere solo delle designazioni espresse, una simile conclusione avrebbe comunque richiesto un riscontro sicuro nella scrittura prodotta dai coniugi).

Anche così, peraltro, il riferimento alla lex patriae del marito suscita in questo caso qualche perplessità. L’art. 8, par. 4, del protocollo dispone infatti che, nonostante la designazione operata convenzionalmente dalle parti ai sensi dell’art. 8, par. 1, la questione della rinunciabilità del diritto al mantenimento va decisa secondo “the law of the State of the habitual residence of the creditor at the time of the designation”, vale a dire — assumendo ancora una volta che i coniugi possedessero in Italia la “residenza abituale” di cui parla il protocollo — secondo la legge italiana.

In realtà, nella decisione, che non richiama il protocollo, si fa questione dell’ammissibilità delle rinunce consentite dai coniugi in base ai parametri del diritto italiano, ma tale verifica viene condotta dal Tribunale secondo lo schema della eccezione di ordine pubblico (per pervenire alla conclusione, non sorprendente, che le rinunce in questione non contrastano con i principi fondamentali dell’ordinamento italiano).

Per quanto questo modo di procedere mal si concili con i dati normativi pertinenti (un conto è fare applicazione di una certa legge in quanto legge richiamata dalla pertinente norma di conflitto per decidere una data questione, un altro conto è accertare se i principi fondamentali di quella legge sono pregiudicati dal ricorso a una diversa legge, ritenuta applicabile al caso di specie), sembra possibile concludere che, anche in relazione a questo profilo, gli esiti del ragionamento del collegio fiorentino non differiscano, nel caso in esame, da quelli a cui si sarebbe verosimilmente pervenuti applicando l’art. 8, par. 4, del protocollo.

A short piece on two recently released papers, both accessible in pdf format (first one in Spanish, second in English). Just click on the title.

I reproduce the abstracts by the authors.

F. J. ZAMORA CABOT, Chair Professor of Private International Law, UJI of Castellon, Spain

Sustainable Development and Multinational Enterprises: A Study of Land Grabbings from a Responsibility Viewpoint

The international community has adopted sustainable development as one of its priority issues. Multinational corporations can however interfere or render it impossible through land grabbings, a complex phenomenon because on many occasions they reach a prominent role that can be seen, among their different appearances, as a real pathology of the above mentioned development.

After having been previously scrutinized with relation to a comment on the case Mubende-Neuman I entertain no doubt at all that such grabbings more often than not turn out to be diametrically opposed to the various targets that outline sustainable development, as have already been revealed, for instance, by Secretary General of the United Nations Ban Ki- Moon, along his consolidated report over the agenda in this regard after 2015.

I propose in here, then, after an Introductory Section, a presentation of the problem following recent cases, showing different conflict situations in selected sectors, Section 2, and others under which collective efforts have achieved or are in the process of attaining remedies in terms of justice, Section 3. I will put an end to my survey with some final reflections, Section 4, within which I will raise the relevant activity carried out by the human rights defenders, in this particular case deeply rooted in the communities and the land where they live and the great credit that deserves to us their continued and brave fight all around the world.

N. ZAMBRANA TÉVAR LLM (LSE), PhD (Navarra) Assistant Professor, KIMEP University (Almaty, Kazakhstan)

Can arbitration become the preferred grievance mechanism in conflicts related to business and human rights?

International law demands that States provide victims of human rights violations with a right to remedy, also in the case of violations of human rights by legal entities. International law also provides some indications as to how State and non-State based dispute resolution mechanisms should be like, in order to fulfil the human rights standards of the right to remedy. Dispute resolution mechanisms of an initially commercial nature, such as arbitration or mediation, could become very useful grievance mechanisms to provide redress for victims of human rights abuses committed by multinational corporations. Still, there are problems to be solved, such as obtaining consent from the parties involved in the arbitration process. Such consent may be obtained by imitating other dispute resolution mechanisms such as ICSID arbitration.

(I am grateful to Prof. Francesca Villata – University of Milan – for the following presentation of the latest issue of the RDIPP)

The first issue of 2015 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features three articles, two comments, and three reports.

Sergio M. Carbone, Professor Emeritus at the University of Genoa and Chiara E. Tuo, Associate Professor at the University of Genoa, examine the issue of third-state defendants and the revised Brussels I Regulation in “Non-EU States and Brussels I: New Rules and Some Solutions for Old Problems” (in English).

The central purpose of this article is to critically assess the changes brought about by the new Brussels I Regulation as regards its scope of application vis-à-vis disputes connected with non-EU countries. Therefore, following an initial outline of the relevant amendments in the Recast, a critical evaluation of the latter against the background of both the ECJ case-law and national practice is presented. The reform is then assessed in the context of the original 2010 recast proposal presented by the EU Commission as well as of the views expressed in literature in relation thereto. The paper maintains that the Recast regime should undergo further revision with a view to implementing cross-border business transactions in the global economy and to satisfying the concomitant demand for greater certainty in international commercial litigation.

Stefania Bariatti, Professor at the University of Milan, analyses the compatibility of recent Italian legislation aimed at the efficiency of the judiciary with the Brussels I and the Brussels Ia Regulations in “I nuovi criteri di competenza per le società estere e la loro incidenza sull’applicazione dei regolamenti europei n. 44/2001 e n. 1215/2012” (The New Jurisdiction Criteria for Foreign Companies and Their Impact on the Application of EU Regulations No 44/2001 and No 1215/2012; in Italian).

Since 2012, the Italian legislature has adopted several statutes aimed at reducing the costs and enhancing the efficiency of the judiciary also through the reduction of the number of courts competent to hear cases where one of the parties is a company having its seat abroad. The latest version of such provisions has been adopted with Decree-Law No 145 of 2013 that centralises these cases at eleven courts. This approach has been taken by other Member States in several fields, mainly invoking the goal of increasing consistency and uniformity of judgments and the specialization of judges to the benefit of all parties. These provisions raise significant questions of compliance with the principles enshrined in the Constitution and they do not seem to attain the goal of uniformity since they provide a double track for purely internal vs cross-border cases. But they appear to be also contrary to some provisions of the Brussels Ia Regulation, in particular where the Regulation directly designates the competent court within a Member State. Hence the question of whether EU law establishes any limits to the power of the Member States to determine the territorial extension of the competence of national courts. The Court of Justice has provided some guidance on these issues in Sanders and Bradbrooke, where the protection of a maintenance creditor and of a minor were at stake. According to the Court, national legislatures should assure the effet utile of EU provisions, while at the same time ensure effective proceedings in cross-border situations, preserve the interests of the weaker party and promote the proper administration of justice. Within the “Brussels I system” such guidance may apply in cases where the position of the parties is unbalanced and the Regulation provides special fora in favour of the weaker party that are based upon proximity. Yet, one may ask whether the solution may differ according to the subject matter of the dispute. Moreover, the fact that the Italian legislature has declared that the fora established under Decree-Law No 145 of 2013 may not be derogated raises the further issue of their compatibility with Article 25 of the Brussels Ia Regulation.

Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Professor at the University Carlo III of Madrid and Javier Carrascosa González, Professor at the University of Murcia, provide an assessment of interim and provisional measures under the Brussels Ia Regulation in “Medidas provisionales y cautelares y reglamento Bruselas I-bis” (Interim and Provisional Measures and the Brussels Ia Regulation; in Spanish).

This paper addresses the impact of Council Regulation No 1215/2012 on provisional and protective measures in civil and commercial matters. The paper shows that this Regulation definitively enhances the recognition and enforcement of those measures in the European Union. Provisional and protective measures attempt to reduce the risks of litigation when the debtor tries to hide or sell his assets, which is relatively easy in a globalized international society where free movement of goods and capitals is assured. Hence, Art 42(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012 provides that enforcement in a Member State of a judgment given in another Member State ordering a provisional or protective measure is possible only if the applicant provides the competent authority proof of service of the judgment ordering that provisional measure, in the case that provisional or protective measure was ordered without the defendant being summoned to appear. The new Regulation gives those measures wider possibilities of recognition and enforcement in the EU even if they were adopted inaudita parte debitoris.

In addition to the foregoing, two comments are featured:

Francesca Capotorti, PhD candidate at the University of Milan, “La nuova direttiva sul riconoscimento delle qualifiche professionali tra liberalizzazione e trasparenza” (The New Directive on the Recognition of Professional Qualifications between Deregulation and Transparency; in Italian).

This article focuses on the most innovative features of Directive 2013/55/EU amending Directive 2005/36/EC on the recognition of professional qualifications and Regulation (EU) No 1024/2012. After having outlined the path that led to the adoption of the Directive and showed the need to modernise Union law in this area, this article analyses a) the European Professional Card; b) partial access; c) professional traineeship; d) common training principles; and e) the further most important revisions of Directive 2005/36/EC aiming at promoting the free movement of professionals. This paper also addresses the novelties introduced by Directive 2013/55/EU to ensure consumer protection and to increase transparency and administrative cooperation. Finally, this article shows that in most cases the European Court of Justice anticipated the results of the new Directive. Still, a Directive is deemed as necessary to clearly and completely regulate the efforts of modernisation in this area, which hopefully will be shared by the European Commission and Member States.

Petr Dobiáš, Senior fellow at the Charles University in Prague, “The New Czech Private International Law” (in English).

The new Act No 91/2012 Coll. on Private International Law was adopted in the Czech Republic on 25 January 2012 and came into force on 1 January 2014. The Act on Private International Law, which takes into consideration the developments in Czech, European and international legislation, was also created with the aim of removing deficiencies and obsolete elements of legislation contained in Act No 97/1963 Coll. on Private and Procedural International Law. In terms of its internal structure, the Act on Private International Law is divided into a total of nine parts which regulate the content of private international law and procedural international law. This article presents and analyses this new legislation, taking into consideration the provisions of the relevant international conventions and secondary law of the European Union. Indeed, the new Act on Private International Law is a response to the new trends in private international law that stem as a result of the current and ongoing developments in international economic relations and in social relationships. As a result of such developments, further flexibility is asked of the domestic provisions of private international law, which must take into account the development of EU Regulations in this area of the law. As this article illustrates, the response to this demand is reflected in several of the provisions laid down in the Act on Private International Law, which emphasize the primacy of EU Regulations and international conventions.

Finally, this issue of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale features three reports; one on restitution of cultural objects and two on recent German case-law on private international and procedural issues:

Sebastian Seeger, Assistant at the University of Heidelberg, “Restitution of Nazi-Looted Art in International Law. Some Thoughts on Marei von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena” (in English).

Georgia Koutsoukou, Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, “Report on Recent German Case-Law Relating to Private International Law in Civil and Commercial Matters” (in English).

Stefanie Spancken, PhD Candidate at the University of Heidelberg, “Report on Recent German Case-Law Relating to Private International Law in Family Law Matters” (in English).

Indexes and archives of RDIPP since its establishment (1965) are available on the website of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale. This issue is available for download on the publisher’s website.

Si terrà il 25 e il 26 settembre 2015 a San Ginesio (Macerata) il tradizionale incontro dei dottorandi di ricerca in diritto internazionale, diritto internazionale privato e diritto dell’Unione europea organizzato dalla Società Italiana di Diritto internazionale in collaborazione con il Centro Internazionale di Studi Gentiliani.

L’iniziativa intende offrire ai dottorandi iscritti al secondo anno la possibilità di presentare i risultati provvisori delle ricerche condotte, promuovendo altresì la discussione sui temi affrontati.

Il Centro Internazionale di Studi Gentiliani si farà carico delle spese di vitto e alloggio dei dottorandi-relatori.

Il modulo di iscrizione – disponibile, unitamente ad ulteriori informazioni, a questo indirizzo – dovrà essere spedito a info@sidi-isil.org entro il 27 luglio 2015.

Utrecht Journal of International and European Law is issuing a Call for Papers for its upcoming Special Issue (82nd edition) on ‘Intellectual Property in International and European Law’. With technological advancement and innovative practices occurring ever more frequently, individuals and undertakings often turn to intellectual property law to protect their ideas and seek remedies where appropriate (e.g. the recent Apple v Samsung design dispute). Recent developments in intellectual property are now a regular feature in popular media and a much-discussed topic amongst the general public. As such, the Utrecht Journal will be dedicating its 2016 Special Issue to ‘Intellectual Property in International and European Law’.

The Board of Editors invites submissions addressing legal issues relating to intellectual property law from an international or European law perspective. Topics may include, but are not limited to: the influence of patenting on the competitive process; the use of IP holding companies to take advantage of favourable tax regimes; patent-trolls; copyright infringements; trademark protection; the ethics of IP (e.g. GMOs), etc. All types of manuscripts, from socio-legal to legal-technical to comparative will be considered. However, please note that any analysis solely limited to a national legal system will fall outside the scope of the Journal. An international or European legal dimension is imperative.

 The Board of Editors will select articles based on quality of research and writing, diversity and relevance of topic. The novelty of the academic contribution is also an essential requirement. Prospective articles should be submitted online via the Journal’s website (www.utrechtjournal.org/about/submissions) and should conform to the Journal style guide. Utrecht Journal has a word limit of 15,000 words including footnotes. For further information please consult our website or email the Editor-in-Chief at utrechtjournal@urios.org.

Deadline for submissions:  15 October 2015

A new working paper of Veerle Van Den Eeckhout on international labour law has been published on SSRN, entitled “The “Right” Way to Go in International Labour Law – and Beyond.”

The abstract reads as follows: The path to follow in (cases of) International Labour Law should be trodden with caution. In this paper, the author highlights several points of attention and issues in the current debate of international labour law. The author also positions some of the issues that are currently being raised in international labour law in similar and broader debates about future developments in Private International Law.

The paper is the written version of a contribution to the expert-meeting “Where do I belong? EU law and adjudication on the link between individuals and Member States”, organized in Antwerp on 7-8 May 2015.

The Annual Conference on European Family Law of the Academy of European Law (ERA) will take place in Trier on 24 and 25 September 2015.

The conference will address, among others, issues regarding marital property regimes, the protection of vulnerable adults and prospects of review of regulation No 2201/2003 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa).

Speakers include Maja Groff (Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law), Peter Mankowski (Univ. Hamburg) and Patrick Wautelet (Univ. Liège).

The conference program is available here. Information regarding fees and registration can be found here.

I have delayed reporting on judgment in Case C-322/14, Jaouad El Majdoub v CarsOnTheWeb.Deutschland GmbH, held 21 May 2015, for exam reasons. I reported earlier on the due diligence required of businesses when establishing choice of court through electronic means. The ECJ has now also had its say, in a case concerning a B2B contract for the purchase of a car. [Choice of court in a B2C context tends to be covered by the consumer contracts title hence is not at stake here. [Mark Young and Philipe Bradley-Schmieg review the relevance of the case for B2C contracts here].

Choice of court allegedly had been made in favour of the courts at Leuven, Belgium, in the vicinity of which the seller’s parent company has its head office. The buyer however sued in Germany, the domicile of the German daughter company (and of the buyer, a car dealer). Buyer claims that the  contract at any rate was with the daughter company, not the mother company, and that choice of court had not been validly made. He submits that the webpage containing the general terms and conditions of sale of the defendant in the main proceedings does not open automatically upon registration and upon every individual sale. Instead, a box with the indication ‘click here to open the conditions of delivery and payment in a new window’ must be clicked on (known as ‘click wrapping’).

In essence therefore the question is whether the requirements of Article 23(2) of the Brussels I Regulation (now Article 25(2)) are met only if the window containing those general conditions opens automatically, and upon every sale. That Article was added at the adoption of the  Brussels I Regulation, precisely to address the then newish trend of agreeing to choice of court (and indeed choice of law; but that is not covered by Brussels I) through electronic means.

The provisions on forum clauses in the 1968 Brussels Convention, Brussels I and the recast are drafted in a way ‘not to impede commercial practice, yet at the same time to cancel out the effects of clauses in contracts which might go unread’ (Report Jenard) or otherwise ‘unnoticed’ (the ECJ in the core case Colzani). the Report Jenard also notes that in order to ensure legal certainty, the formal requirements applicable to agreements conferring jurisdiction should be expressly prescribed, but that ‘excessive formality which is incompatible with commercial practice‘ should be avoided.

The first sentence of Article 25(1) discusses the parties ‘agreement’ as to choice of court. (It leaves a large array of national law issues untouched, such as consideration, mandate, 3rd party effect. etc. On some of those issues, see also Refcomp). The remainder of Article 25(1) concerns the possible formats in which agreement is testified. Article 25(2) (and 23(2) before it) accompanies Article 25(1) a’s option of having the agreement put down ‘in writing’.

In line with the requirement not to be excessively formalistic, the ECJ essentially requires that parties be duly diligent when agreeing to choice of court. If click-wrapping makes it possible to print and save the text of those terms and conditions before the conclusion of the contract, then it can be considered a communication by electronic means which provides a durable record of the agreement.

Note that the Court does not hold on whether the agreement is actually reached between the parties: only that click-wrap may provide a durable record of such agreement, where it exists. (One could imagine choice of court having been protested, for instance, or other issues of national law having an impact on the actual existence of the agreement. and one can certainly imaigne a continuing discussion on what contract was concluded between what parties in the case at issue].

Geert.

The second edition of “Rome Regulations: Commentary on the European Rules of the Conflict of Laws”, edited by Gralf-Peter Calliess (Chair for Private Law, Private International Law, International Business Law and Legal Theory, University of Bremen), has just been published by Wolters Kluwer (1016 pp, 250 €). The second edition provides a systematic and profound article-by-article commentary on the Rome I, II and III Regulations. It has been extensively updated and rewritten to take account of recent legal developments and jurisprudence in the field of determining the law applicable to contractual (Rome I) and non-contractual (Rome II) obligations. It also contains a completely new commentary on the Rome III Regulation regarding the law applicable to divorce and separation. The aim of the book is to provide expert guidance from a team of leading German, Austrian and Swiss private international law scholars to judges, lawyers, and practitioners throughout Europe and beyond.

In her review of the first edition, my dear fellow conflictoflaws.net co-editor Giesela Rühl complained about a lack of diversity, pointing out that the circle of authors consisted exclusively of younger, male scholars (RabelsZ 77 [2013], p. 413, 415 in fn. 6). Well, not only have we male authors grown older since then; we now have quite a number of distinguished female colleagues on board, too: Susanne Augenhofer, Katharina de la Durantaye, Kathrin Kroll-Ludwigs, Eva Lein and Marianne Roth. For further details, see here.

“This book does what it promises, which is to provide judges and practitioners with easy access to the contents and interpretation of provisions of the Rome I and II Regulations. The thoroughness of the commentaries on most of the provisions also makes it a recommended read for scholars needing a quick orientation regarding several provisions, or wanting to make sure they have not missed out on important background information. A welcome addition to the various topic-based treatises regarding Rome I and II Regulations, the book has succeeded in its goal of furthering the valuable German tradition in terms of the European discourse.” (Xandra Kramer, review of the first edition, Common Market L. Rev. 2014, p. 335, 337)

La Commissione europea ha recentemente affidato ad un Consorzio composto dall’Università di Firenze, dall’Università di Uppsala e da DMI, una società di consulenza francese, uno studio riguardante le notifiche negli Stati Membri dell’Unione.

Tale studio, focalizzandosi sulle notifiche interne, si propone di appurare le differenze che esistono tra le discipline nazionali e che possono costituire un ostacolo al corretto funzionamento del regolamento n. 1393/2007 relativo alla notificazione e alla comunicazione negli Stati membri degli atti giudiziari ed extragiudiziali in materia civile o commerciale.

A questo proposito, esponenti delle professioni  legali e dell’accademia degli Stati Membri sono invitati a compilare un questionario online entro il 15 luglio 2015.

Ulteriori informazioni sul progetto e sulle modalità di partecipazione sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

ArbitralWomen, Transnational Dispute Management and Ashurst are hosting an event in London on 2 July 2015 for the launch of the TDM Special Issue on “Dealing with Diversity in International Arbitration.” The event will be followed by a drinks reception.

This Special Issue will analyse discrimination and diversity in international arbitration. It will examine new trends, developments, and challenges in the use of practitioners from different geographical, ethnic/racial, religious backgrounds as well as of different genders in international arbitration, whether as counsel or tribunal members. The launch of the Special Issue will be followed by the launch of the AW New Website.

Download the brochure here.

With renewable energy disputes seemingly everywhere these days, OGEL and TDM have published a special joint issue focusing on these disputes at the level of international, European and national law. Below is the table of contents:

Introduction – Renewable Energy Disputes in the Europe and beyond: An Overview of Current Cases, by K. Talus, University of Eastern Finland

Renewable Energy Disputes in the World Trade Organization, by R. Leal-Arcas, Queen Mary University of London, and A. Filis

Aggressive Legalism: China’s Proactive Role in Renewable Energy Trade Disputes?, by C. Wu, Academia Sinica, and K. Yang, Soochow University (Taipei)

Mapping Emerging Countries’ Role in Renewable Energy Trade Disputes, by B. Olmos Giupponi, University of Stirling

Green Energy Programs and the WTO Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures: A Good FIT?, by D.P. Steger, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law

EU’s Renewable Energy Directive saved by GATT Art. XX?, by J. Grigorova, Paris 1 Pantheon Sorbonne University

Retroactive Reduction of Support for Renewable Energy and Investment Treaty Protection from the Perspective of Shareholders and Lenders, by A. Reuter, GÖRG Partnerschaft von Rechtsanwälten

Renewable Energy Disputes Before International Economic Tribunals: A Case for Institutional ‘Greening’?, by A. Kent, University of East Anglia

Renewable Energy Claims under the Energy Charter Treaty: An Overview, by J.M. Tirado, Winston & Strawn LLP

Non-Pecuniary Remedies Under the Energy Charter Treaty, by A. De Luca, Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi

Joined Cases C-204/12 to C-208/12, Essent Belgium, by H. Bjørnebye, University of Oslo, Faculty of Law

Ålands Vindkraft AB v Energimyndigheten – The Free Movement Law Perspective, by S.L. Penttinen, UEF Law School, University of Eastern Finland

Recent Renewables Litigation in the UK: Some Interesting Cases, by A. Johnston, Faculty of Law, University College (Oxford)

The Rise and Fall of the Italian Scheme of Support for Renewable Energy From Photovoltaic Plants, by Z. Brocka Balbi

The Italian Photovoltaic sector in two practical cases: how to create an unfavorable investment climate in Renewables, by S.F. Massari, Università degli Studi di Bologna

Renewable Energy and Arbitration in Brazil: Some Topics, by E. Silva da Silva, CCRD-CAM / Brazil-Canada Chamber of Commerce, and N. Sosa Rebelo, Norte Rebelo Law Firm

Renewable Energy in the EU, the Energy Charter Treaty, and Italy’s Withdrawal Therefrom, by A. De Luca, Università Commerciale Luigi Bocconi

Excerpts of these articles are available here and here

A voluminous Festschrift in honour of Gerhard Wegen has recently been published: Christian Cascante, Andreas Spahlinger and Stephan Wilske (eds.), Global Wisdom on Business Transactions, International Law and Dispute Resolution, Festschrift für Gerhard Wegen zum 65. Geburtstag, Munich (CH Beck) 2015; XIII, 864 pp., 199 €. Gerhard Wegen is not only one of the leading German M & A lawyers and an internationally renowned expert on commercial arbitration, but also a honorary professor of international business law at the University of Tübingen (Germany) and a co-editor of a highly successful commentary on the German Civil Code (including private international law). This liber amicorum contains contributions both in English and in German on topics related to international business law, private international and comparative law as well as various aspects of international dispute resolution. For conflictoflaws.net readers, contributions on Unamar and mandatory rules (Gunther Kühne, p. 451), international labour law (Stefan Lingemann and Eva Maria Schweitzer, p. 463), problems of characterization in international insolvency law (Andreas Spahlinger, p. 527) and marital property law in German-French relations (Gerd Weinreich, p. 557) may be of particular interest. Moreover, a large number of articles is devoted to international commercial arbitration (pp. 569 et seqq.). For the full table of contents, see here.

Another recent Festschrift has been published in honour of Wulf-Henning Roth, professor emeritus at the University of Bonn: Thomas Ackermann/Johannes Köndgen (eds.), Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht in Europa, Festschrift für Wulf-Henning Roth zum 70. Geburtstag, Munich (CH Beck) 2015; XIV, 744 pp., 199 €. Although Roth is generally recognized as one of the leading German conflicts scholars of his generation, this liber amicorum is focused mainly on substantive private and economic law, both from a German and a European perspective. Nevertheless, readers interested in choice of law may discover some gems that deserve close attention: Wolfgang Ernst deals with English judge-made case-law as the applicable foreign law (p. 83), Johannes Fetsch analyses Article 83(4) of the EU Succession Regulation (p. 107), Peter Mankowski looks at choice-of-law agreements in consumer contracts (p. 361), Heinz-Peter Mansel publishes a pioneering study on mandatory rules in international property law (p. 375), and Oliver Remien presents a survey on the application of the law of other Member States in the EU (p. 431). For the full table of contents, see here.