Droit international général

On 2 March 2022 the US signed the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters. Five more States have already signed the Convention, namely Costa Rica, Israel, the Russian Federation, Ukraine and Uruguay.

So far, none of the above States has ratified the Convention. According to Article 28, two ratifications are needed for the Convention to enter into force.

In July 2021, the European Commission presented a proposal for a Council decision on the accession to the Convention by the European Union. In December 2021, the Council forwarded the draft Council decision to the European Parliament, the consent of which is a precondition for the adoption of the decision pursuant to Article 218 of the TFEU.

Today, 2 March 2022, the United States of America (USA) signed the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. This made the world’s largest economy the sixth signatory state to the new legal instrument, following Uruguay, Costa Rica, Israel and, intricately, Ukraine and the Russian Federation. However, read in conjunction with the recent proposal of the European Commission, the U.S. signature demonstrates the (still) strong interest in a global legal framework for judicial cooperation in the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

Originally posted on the NGPIL website

The NGPIL previously announced a Prize of 300 British Pounds Sterling for the best paper on Nigerian conflict of laws for an undergraduate and/or postgraduate scholar studying in Nigeria, or any Nigerian lawyer five years call or below practicing and residing in Nigeria.

A call for paper commenced in September 2021 with submissions received from participants across various States in Nigeria, entries from undergraduates and postgraduates in law, and early years post-call practitioners.

Following the submission deadline on 10 January 2022, the NGPIL made an assessment that Mr Solomon Adegboyo, an LLM student at the University of Ibadan, emerged winner of the competition.  Mr Adegboyo’s winning entry is titled “Tort in the Conflict of Laws: A Comparative Analysis”. Mr Olawale Adeosun, an LLM student at the University of Lagos, emerged the first runner up. Miss Hope Olajumoke a Nigerian law graduate (1 year post call to the Bar, Ekiti State University) emerged the 2nd runner up.

The response to the call was very encouraging and it is hoped this will be the springboard to encouraging, nurturing, and strengthening the foundations of private international law in Nigeria from earlier stages of academia and practice. This initiative will also assist with targeting areas of improvement such as addressing the lack of materials and resources on conflict of laws in Nigeria.

Huge congratulations to the winner and thank you to our runners-up and other participants!

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Skat v Solo Capital Partners here and concluded that it endangered the effet utile of Brussels Ia (and Lugano). Justice Baker had concluded that all SKAT’s claims were inadmissible as a consequence of Dicey Rule 3. The Court of Appeal has now largely reversed, [Skatteforvaltningen v Solo Capital Partners Llp [2022] EWCA Civ 234] thereby resurrecting a £1,4 billion claim.

SKAT (Danish customs and excise) seeks the return of amounts it says it was wrongly induced to pay out as tax refunds. SKAT is not seeking to recover due and unpaid dividend tax or indeed any tax, because the foundation of its argument is that in the case of the alleged fraud defendants there was no liability to pay tax, no shares, no dividends, no tax and no withholding tax. There was never a taxpayer/tax authority relationship between the Solo etc Applicants or the alleged fraud defendants and SKAT. The mere fact that the alleged fraud is committed in the context of taxation or against a foreign tax authority is insufficient to bring the matter within the rule [SKAT’s counsel arguments, [30]-[31]). To allow the defendants to escape their liability, not in a tax fraud but in a general conspiracy, would also run counter the fraus omnia corrumpit principle [ditto, 62], a point which Flaux C agrees with obiter [146] in a case of a major international fraud..

Flaux C is much less verbose than the submissions before him. Yet again a jurisdictional point was allowed to be litigated to great length – albeit one may appreciate counsel and clients’ energy on those issues given the value of the claim.

[127] the basis of the claim is fraudulent misrepresentation. It is not a claim to unpaid tax or a claim to recover tax at all. It is a claim to recover monies which had been abstracted from SKAT’s general funds by fraud [128]. Even though SKAT may be an emanation of the Danish state, the Dicey revenue rule does not apply [128], neither does the wider sovereign powers rule within Dicey Rule 3:

‘In bringing a claim to recover the monies of which it was defrauded, SKAT is not doing an act of a sovereign character or enforcing a sovereign right, nor is it seeking to vindicate a sovereign power. Rather it is making a claim as the victim of fraud for the restitution of monies of which it has been defrauded, in the same way as if it were a private citizen.’ [129]

This latter reasoning falls short I find of proper criteria to guide its future application, although more is said at [130]: the claim to recover the money is at the core of the Chancellor’s reasoning here and that claim is a straightforward money claim, and [133] ‘the claims are ones which could just as well be brought by a private citizen’. That is the kind of argument which echoes CJEU authority on civil and commercial and to my mind the Court of Appeal could have helped us all by pointing out more specifically to what degree Dicey Rule 3 be informed by CJEU authority on ‘civil and commercial’, regardless of Brexit.

That there would be a detailed examination of the Danish tax regime and possible criticism of it and of SKAT’s systems and control, does not somehow convert the claim into one to enforce that tax regime. Recognition of foreign revenue laws is permissible under Dicey Rule 3 [138].

The position of one of the defendants, ED&F Man, is different in the sense that there is no allegation that they were implicated in a fraud. Although it is alleged that misrepresentations were made by them, the misrepresentations are said to have been negligent.

SKAT has to accept that as against those defendants the claim is inadmissible by virtue of Dicey Rule 3 unless it can satisfy the Court: (i) that the claim is a “civil and commercial matter” not a “revenue matter” for the purposes of Article 1(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation; and (ii) that the operation of Dicey Rule 3 is precluded because, contrary to the judge’s analysis, it would impair the effectiveness of the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Contrary to the conclusion the judge reached the Court of Appeal finds that the claim against ED&F Man is a “revenue matter” falling outside the Brussels Recast Regulation. Here the Court of Appeals applies parity of reasoning with its assessment of the other claims: [150]:

Whilst the test for the application of Dicey Rule 3 may not be identical to that for determining what is a “revenue etc matter” for Article 1(1) of the Brussels Recast Regulation, it can be seen that its application leads to the same answer. If Dicey Rule 3 applies (as SKAT has to accept it does in relation to the claim against ED&F Man) then by the same reasoning, the basis for the claim by SKAT against those defendants is either a right which arises from an exercise of public powers or a legal relationship characterised by an exercise of public powers, from which it necessarily follows that the claim is a revenue matter outside the Brussels Recast Regulation.

Unfortunately therefore the effet utile argument (that application of Dicey rule 3 impairs the effectiveness of BIa /Lugano, as I had argued in my earlier post) is not discussed [153].

The title of this piece of course hints at the relevance of claim formulation. It is also exaggerated: SKAT cannot conjure up fraud elements out of nowhere to reinvent a tax claim as one in mere tortious and fraudulent misrepresentation. However it is clear that in cases that are somewhat murky, claim formulation will be crucial to navigate Dicey Rule 3.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 2.28 ff.

Thank you Ali Malek QC (successful for defendants) for bringing this AM's CA's judgment in SKAT to my attention.
Dicey rule 3, foreign public law, revenue matters
Appeal only partially succeedshttps://t.co/UQwg8caiGf
Review of the first instance judgmenthttps://t.co/r7WXwAoaXl

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) February 25, 2022

Yesterday (1 March 2022) the Institute of International Law approved a declaration on the aggression in Ukraine. The declaration is available by clicking the following links:

Declaration of the Institute of International Law on Aggression in Ukraine – 1 March 2022 (EN)-1

Déclaration de l’Institut de Droit international sur l’agression en Ukraine – 1 mars 2022 (FR)

The current developments in Ukraine and the measures and sanctions currently in place have undoubtedly an impact across all areas, including private international law. See for example the measures adopted by the European Union here.

I include an excerpt of the declaration below:

The Institute recalls that the ongoing military operations call ipso facto for the application of international humanitarian law, including the rules relating to occupation, as well as all the other rules applicable in times of armed conflict. It recalls also that persons responsible for international crimes as defined by international law may be prosecuted and sentenced in accordance with the law in force.

Faithful to its mission, the Institute remains convinced that, while international law alone cannot prevent the outbreak of violence, it must remain the compass by which States are guided, and it is more than ever determined to strengthen its work to promote “the progress of international law”. The Institute adds its voice to that of other actors in the international community, including the learned societies acting in defense of the rule of law, who call for an end to the war in Ukraine and the settlement in good faith of disputes between the States concerned through all appropriate means of peaceful settlement.

Shuai Guo (China University of Political Science and Law of Beijing) authored a book titled Recognition of Foreign Bank Resolution Actions, published by Edward Elgar. The book is part of the series of Elgar monographs in private international law.

This timely book offers a comprehensive study of the mechanism that gives effect to foreign bank resolution actions. In particular, it focuses on how the legal framework for the recognition of foreign bank resolution actions should be structured and proposes detailed legal principles on which effective frameworks should be based.

Shuai Guo conducts both normative and positive law analysis to investigate the status quo of available legal instruments that are used to recognise foreign resolution actions within three representative jurisdictions: the European Union, the United States and mainland China. Building on the traditional legal doctrines of private international law, financial law and insolvency law, this book proposes ten principles that should be applied to foreign bank resolution actions, offering innovative ideas for further research and study. Additionally, it fills the gap in scholarly research on the issue of cross-border bank resolution and formulates rules that would facilitate effective resolution actions across borders to achieve a global orderly resolution for banks.

Recognition of Foreign Bank Resolution Actions will be key reading for researchers and students in the fields of private international law, finance and banking law. The technical legal issues addressed throughout the book will also appeal to insolvency and banking lawyers, as well as policy makers within the field.

The table of contents can be accessed here.

As announced a few weeks ago, the European Association of Private International Law has set up a Working Group charged with responding to a public consultation launched by the European Commission, aimed at gathering evidence on the measures that the EU may adopt to enhance the protection of vulnerable adults in Europe.

The Group consists of seven members: Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan), Estelle Gallant (Toulouse 1 Capitole University), Cristina González Beilfuss (University of Barcelona), Katja Karjalainen (University of Eastern Finland), Thalia Kruger (University of Antwerp), Tamás Szabados (Eötvös Loránd University), Jan von Hein (University of Freiburg).

A webinar will take place on 10 March 2022 from 5 pm to 7 pm CET, organised by the Working Group. The Group intends to present a preliminary draft response and receive feedback from interested experts, practitioners and stakeholders.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required. Those interested in attending the webinar are invited to fill in the form available here by 9 March at noon.

For information, please write to the Group’s co-chair, Pietro Franzina, at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

In March 2022 the Court of Justice will publish three judgments and three opinions.

Judgments

The decisions correspond to cases C-421/20, Acacia (3 March), C-498/20, BMA Nederland (9 March), and C-723/20, Galapagos BidCo (24 March).

Case C-421/20, Acacia, is a request for a preliminary ruling from the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf in a case opposing Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft against an Italian company, Acacia S.R.L. The defendant manufactures rims for motor vehicles in Italy and sells them throughout the European Union. In Germany, it markets rims under the name ‘WSP Italy’, including the ‘Neptune GT’ model. The claimant considers that the distribution of the rims in Germany by the defendant constitutes an infringement of its Registered Design, whereas the defendant invokes the repair clause in Article 110 of the Council Regulation (EC) No 6/2002 of 12 December 2001 on Community designs (Community Designs Regulation, CDR). The questions referred concern both the international jurisdiction and the applicable law, and require the interpretation of provisions of the CDR and of the Rome II Regulation:

1. In proceedings for an infringement of Community designs, can the national court dealing with the infringement proceedings having international jurisdiction pursuant to Article 82(5) of the CDR apply the national law of the Member State in which the court dealing with the infringement proceedings is situated (lex fori) to subsequent claims in relation to the territory of its Member State?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Can the ‘initial place of infringement’ for the purposes of the CJEU judgments in Cases C‑24/16, C‑25/16 (Nintendo v BigBen) regarding the determination of the law applicable to subsequent claims under Article 8(2) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’) (‘the Rome II Regulation’) also lie in the Member State where the consumers to whom internet advertising is addressed are located and where goods infringing designs are put on the market within the meaning of Article 19 of the CDR, in so far as only the offering and the putting on the market in that Member State are challenged, even if the internet offers on which the offering and the putting on the market are based were launched in another Member State?

Advocate General M. Szpunar had published his opinion in October 2021. No English version is available so far. My translation would be the following:

‘Article 1(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 (…) and Article 88 (2) as well as Article 89 (1) (d) of Council Regulation (EC) No. 6/2002 (…) are to be interpreted as meaning that a case in which a court of a Member State is seized pursuant to Article 82(5) of the latter Regulation of an infringement action by a right holder resident in this State against an infringer resident in another Member State, which concerns the offer for sale and the placing on the market of the goods in question in the first Member State, there is a connection to the law of different States within the meaning of Art 1(1) of Regulation No. 864/2007 and, consequently, Article 8(2) of that regulation determines the law applicable to subsequent claims relating to the territory of that Member State.

Article 8(2) of Regulation No 864/2007 must be interpreted as meaning that the term “[country] in which the act of infringement was committed” within the meaning of that provision, insofar as it relates to the determination of the infringement action subsequent claims asserted, relates to the country in which the original infringing act on which the conduct reproached is based was committed.’

The judgment will be adopted by the fifth chamber – E. Regan, K. Lenaerts, C. Lycourgos (as reporting judge), I. Jarukaitis and M. Ilešič.

Case C-498/20, BMA Nederland, was referred to the Court of Justice by the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland. The applicant in the main dispute is ZK, in his capacity as successor to JM, liquidator in the bankruptcy of BMA Nederland BV (‘BMA NL’); the defendant is BMA Braunschweigische Maschinenbauanstalt AG (‘BMA AG’). Stichting Belangbehartiging Crediteuren BMA Nederland acts as intervening party.

In the main proceedings, the liquidator seeks a declaration that BMA AG has breached its duty of care towards the general body of creditors of its sub-subsidiary – the bankrupt company BMA N L- ; that it has thereby acted unlawfully; and that it is liable for the damage suffered by the general body of creditors. In addition, he seeks a declaration that BMA AG is obliged to pay to the estate of BMA NL, for the benefit of the general body of creditors, damages equal to the non-recoverable part of the claims of the general body of creditors against BMA NL.

The Stichting seeks a declaration that BMA AG has acted unlawfully (i) towards all the creditors involved in the bankruptcy of BMA NL, (ii) towards the creditors who relied on BMA NL’s having fulfilled its obligations towards them, since BMA AG was supposed to provide BMA NL with adequate financing for that purpose, (iii) or towards the creditors who could have taken measures to prevent their claims against BMA NL from remaining unpaid had they been aware in advance of the cessation of further financing by BMA AG. The Stichting also claims that BMA AG should be ordered as a third party to pay to each of BMA NL’s creditors, at its first request, the entire amount (including interest) owed by BMA NL to that creditor.

The national court asks the following sets of questions to the Court of Justice:

Question 1

(a) Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 [Brussels I bis] be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place of the event giving rise to the damage’ (Handlungsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors?

(b) Must the term ‘place where the harmful event occurred’ in Article 7, point 2, of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurred’ (Erfolgsort) is the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress for claims of its creditors, if that lack of redress is the result of a breach by that company’s grandparent company of its duty of care towards those creditors?

(c) Are additional circumstances required which justify the jurisdiction of the courts of the place of establishment of the company which offers no redress and, if so, what are those circumstances?

(d) Does the fact that the Netherlands liquidator of the company which offers no redress for the claims of its creditors has, by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate, made a claim for damages arising from tort/delict for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the [Brussels I bis Regulation]? Such a claim implies that there is no room for an examination of the individual positions of the individual creditors and that the third party concerned cannot avail itself of all the defences against the liquidator which it might have been able to use in respect of certain individual creditors.

(e)     Does the fact that a portion of the creditors for whose benefit the liquidator makes the claim have their domicile outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of the competent court on the basis of Article 7, point 2, of the [Brussels I bis Regulation]?

Question 2

Would the answer to Question 1 be different in the case of a claim made by a foundation which has as its purpose the protection of the collective interests of creditors who have suffered damage as referred to in Question 1? Such a collective claim implies that the proceedings would not determine (a) the domiciles of the creditors in question, (b) the particular circumstances giving rise to the claims of the individual creditors against the company and (c) whether a duty of care as referred to above exists in respect of the individual creditors and whether it has been breached.

Question 3

Must Article 8, point 2, of the [Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that, if the court seised of the original proceedings reverses its decision that it has jurisdiction in respect of those proceedings, such a reversal also automatically excludes its jurisdiction in respect of the claims made by the intervening third party?

Question 4

(a) Must Article 4(1) of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations [Rome II Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that ‘the place where the damage occurs’ is the place where the company which offers no redress for the damage suffered by its creditors as a result of the breach of the duty of care referred to above has its registered office?

(b) Does the fact that the claims have been made by a liquidator by virtue of his statutory duty to wind up the estate and by a representative of collective interests for the benefit of (but not on behalf of) the general body of creditors affect the determination of that place?

(c) Does the fact that some of the creditors are domiciled outside the territory of the European Union affect the determination of that place?

(d) Is the fact that there were financing agreements between the Netherlands bankrupt company and its grandparent company which nominated the German courts as the forum of choice and declared German law to be applicable a circumstance which makes the alleged tort/delict of BMA AG manifestly more closely connected with a country other than the Netherlands within the meaning of Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation?

The opinion of Advocate General M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona was requested only in relation to the fourth question. In order to answer it he addressed as well the exclusion of non-contractual obligations arising out of the law of companies from the scope of Regulation Rome II under its Article 1(2)(d). I provide here a non-official translation into English:

Article 1(2)(d) of the Rome II Regulation must be interpreted in the sense that it excludes from its scope of application the non-contractual obligations resulting from the infringement of the duty of diligence of partners or administrators when the law attributes the responsibility before third parties, derived from said infraction, to the partners or administrators for company law-related reasons. By contrast, liability arising from a breach of the generic duty of care is not excluded from the scope of the Regulation.

Article 4 (1), of the Rome II Regulation must be interpreted in the sense that the country where the damage occurs is the one where a company has its domicile, when the damage suffered by its creditors is the indirect consequence of economic losses initially suffered by the company itself. The circumstance that the actions are brought by a bankruptcy administrator in his capacity as insolvency liquidator, or by an entity for the defence of collective interests, in favour (but not on behalf) of all the creditors, is without incidence on the ascertainment of such a country. The domicile of some creditors outside the European Union is equally irrelevant.

Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that a pre-existing relationship between the tortfeasor and the direct victim (such as, for example, a financing agreement, for which the parties have chosen the applicable law) is an element to be weighed together with the rest of the circumstances, in order to establish whether there is, between the harmful event and a certain country, a manifestly closer connection than that of the same event and the country whose law would apply under Articles 4(1) and (2).

Judges N. Jääskinen, N. Piçarra and M. Safjan (reporting judge) will adjudicate.

The ruling in C-723/20, Galapagos BidCo, will be one delivered by a chamber of five judges (E. Regan, I. Jarukaitis acting as reporting judge, M. Ilešič, D. Gratsias and Z. Csehi), without a previous opinion. The case is pending before the Bundesgerichtshof (Germany), which has referred the following questions in relation to Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (the new insolvency regulation):

1. Is Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that a debtor company the statutory seat of which is situated in a Member State does not have the centre of its main interests in a second Member State in which the place of its central administration is situated, as can be determined on the basis of objective factors ascertainable by third parties, in the case where, in circumstances such as those in the main proceedings, the debtor company has moved that place of central administration from a third Member State to the second Member State at a time when a request to have the main insolvency proceedings opened in respect of its assets has been lodged in the third Member State and a decision on that request has not yet been delivered?
2. If Question 1 is answered in the negative: Is Article 3(1) of Regulation (EU) 2015/848 to be interpreted as meaning that:

(a)     the courts of the Member State within the territory of which the centre of the debtor’s main interests is situated at the time when the debtor lodges the request to have insolvency proceedings opened retain international jurisdiction to open those proceedings if the debtor moves the centre of its main interests to the territory of another Member State after lodging the request but before the decision opening insolvency proceedings is delivered, and

(b)     such continuing international jurisdiction of the courts of one Member State excludes the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State in respect of further requests to have the main insolvency proceedings opened received by a court of that other Member State after the debtor has moved its centre of main interests to that other Member State?

Opinions

Let’s move now to the three opinions.

The one of Advocate General P. Pikamäe in case C-7/21, LKW WALTER, is expected on Thursday 9. The  questions come from the Bezirksgericht Bleiburg (Austria), on a case involving LKW WALTER internationale Transportorganisation AG, a company registered in the Austrian commercial register which operates in the field of international carriage of goods, and several defendants. The applicant is claiming EUR 22 168.09 plus interest and costs from the defendants on the ground of lawyers’ liability, because the defendants had failed to comply with the time limit to lodge in Slovenia an objection against a Slovenian decision on enforcement served on the applicant.

It is in those proceedings that the request for a preliminary ruling is made:

1.  Are Articles 36 and 39 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, read in conjunction with Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union and the principles of effectiveness and equivalence (principle of sincere cooperation under Article 4(3) TEU), to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the sole remedy against a decision on enforcement issued by the court without prior adversarial proceedings and without an instrument permitting enforcement, and solely on the basis of the allegations of the party seeking enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days in the language of that Member State, even if the decision on enforcement is served in another Member State in a language which the addressee does not understand, and the objection is already rejected as being out of time if it is lodged within twelve days?
2.  Is Article 8 of Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 November 2007 on the service of documents, read in conjunction with the principles of effectiveness and equivalence, to be interpreted as precluding a national measure which provides that, upon service of the standard form set out in Annex II informing the addressee of his or her right to refuse to accept the document within a period of one week, the period also begins to run in respect of bringing the appeal provided for against the decision on enforcement served at the same time, for which a period of eight days is laid down?
3. Is Article 18(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union to be interpreted as precluding a provision of a Member State which provides for, as the remedy against a decision on enforcement, an objection, which must be lodged within eight days, and that time limit also applies where the addressee of the decision on enforcement is established in another Member State and the decision on enforcement is not written either in the official language of the Member State in which the decision on enforcement is served or in a language which the addressee of the decision understands?

One week later – thus, on Thursday 17-, M. J. Richard de la Tour will deliver his opinion in C-604/20, ROI Land Investments, a request from the Bundesarbeitsgericht (Germany). In the main proceedings, the defendant is a company operating in the real estate sector; the seat of its central administration is in Canada. The applicant, domiciled in Germany , had been working for the defendant on the basis of a ‘service agreement’ since the end of September 2015. As the parties felt that there was uncertainty surrounding the applicant’s employment status, they decided ‘to transfer’ the contractual relationship to a Swiss company that was to be newly established. In mid-November 2015, they agreed to terminate the ‘service agreement’ with retroactive effect. An accompanying letter from the applicant states that he signed the agreement subject to the condition that an equivalent agreement be concluded in relation to an executive management contract in respect of the Swiss company to be established.

On January 2016, the defendant established a subsidiary, R Swiss AG, under Swiss law. On February 2016, the applicant concluded a written contract of employment with R Swiss for a position as its director; the same day the parties signed a ‘patron agreement’ (as per the terminology used by the parties, commonly referred to as a ‘letter of comfort’). The contract of employment was to be subject to Swiss law.

On July 2016, R Swiss notified the applicant that the contract of employment was to be terminated. By judgment of 2 November 2016, the Arbeitsgericht Stuttgart (Stuttgart Labour Court, Germany) found that the termination was ineffective and ordered R Swiss to pay the applicant a certain amount of money. This judgment became final, but R Swiss did not discharge its payment obligation. Later, bankruptcy proceedings were opened in respect of the assets of R Swiss under Swiss law. At the beginning of May 2017, those proceedings were discontinued owing to a lack of insolvency assets.

In the main proceedings, the applicant seeks, on the basis of the letter of comfort, payment from the defendant of the sums owed by R Swiss according to the aforementioned judgment of the Stuttgart Labour Court. The action was dismissed at first instance on the ground that the German courts lack international jurisdiction. The Berufungsgericht (Court of Appeal), on the other hand, found that the German labour courts do have jurisdiction and upheld the action. By its appeal on a point of law brought before the referring court, the defendant seeks to have the decision at first instance restored.

The success of the defendant’s appeal on a point of law depends therefore crucially on whether the German courts have international jurisdiction. That jurisdiction could arise, first, from Article 21(2) read in conjunction with Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation (question 1), second, from Paragraph 48(1a) read in conjunction with Paragraph 3 ArbGG, although the applicability of that national rule is unclear (question 2) and, third, from Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, if the applicant can be regarded as a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of that provision (question 3). If the German courts do in fact have jurisdiction, the question also arises as to which national law is applicable to the letter of comfort (question 4). The questions referred to the Court of Justice are:

1. Is Article 6(1) read in conjunction with Article 21(2) and Article 21(1)(b) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘Brussels I Regulation’) to be interpreted as meaning that an employee can sue a legal person – which is not his employer and which is not domiciled in a Member State within the meaning of Article 63(1) of the Brussels I Regulation but which, by virtue of a letter of comfort, is directly liable to the employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party – in the courts for the place where or from where the employee habitually carries out his work in the employment relationship with the third party or in the courts for the last place where he did so, if the contract of employment with the third party would not have come into being in the absence of the letter of comfort?
2. Is Article 6(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the reservation in respect of Article 21(2) of the Brussels I Regulation precludes the application of a rule of jurisdiction existing under the national law of the Member State which allows an employee to sue a legal person, which, in circumstances such as those described in the first question, is directly liable to him for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party, as the ‘successor in title’ of the employer in the courts for the place where the employee habitually carries out his work, if no such jurisdiction exists under Article 21(2) read in conjunction with Article 21(1)(b)(i) of the Brussels I Regulation?
3. If the first question is answered in the negative and the second question in the affirmative:

(a) Is Article 17(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘professional activities’ includes paid employment in an employment relationship?

(b) If so, is Article 17(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a letter of comfort on the basis of which a legal person is directly liable for claims of an employee arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party constitutes a contract concluded by the employee for a purpose which can be regarded as being within the scope of his professional activities?

4. If, in answer to the above questions, the referring court is deemed to have international jurisdiction to rule on the dispute:

(a) Is Article 6(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) to be interpreted as meaning that the concept of ‘professional activities’ includes paid employment in an employment relationship?

(b) If so, is Article 6(1) of the Rome I Regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a letter of comfort on the basis of which a legal person is directly liable to an employee for claims arising from an individual contract of employment with a third party constitutes a contract concluded by the employee for a purpose which can be regarded as being within the scope of his professional activities?

Finally, Advocate General A.M. Collins’s opinion on C-18/21, Uniqa Versicherungen should be available on the last Thursday of March. I refer to the explanation of the case I made previously, when announcing the hearing last January.

The Institute for Private International and Comparative Law of the University of Cologne (Professor Mansel) is looking to appoint one to two Research Assistant(s) (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) on fixed-term contracts for 2 years, with contract extension possible, based in Cologne. The successful candidate(s) can be appointed full time (39.83 hrs/week) or part-time (19.92 hrs/week), with the latter option allowing for the completion of a PhD thesis. A German State Exam in law with above-average marks is required. In addition, proficiency in the Dutch, Italian, Spanish, or French language is an advantage. The remuneration will be based on pay group 13 TV-L.

The University of Cologne promotes equal opportunities and diversity in its employment relationships. Women are expressly invited to apply and will be given preferential treatment in accordance with the LGG NRW. Applications from severely disabled persons are very welcome. They will be given preferential consideration if suitable for the position.

Interested candidates are invited to send their detailed application including the usual documents in a single .pdf file by 20 March 2022 to ipr-institut@uni-koeln.de, for the attention of Professor Mansel.

Mathilde Codazzi, who is a master student at the university Paris II Panthéon-Assas, contributed to this post.

In a judgment of 9 February 2022, the French Cour de cassation ruled that the “relationship existing between the parties” required by Article 10(1) of the Rome II Regulation in order to apply the law governing this relationship to a claim of unjust enrichment cannot be found in a contract existing between one of the parties to the non-contractual obligation and a third party, nor in the performance by a party of obligations arising from mandatory provisions of the law applicable to the said contract.

Article 10(1) of the Rome II Regulation reads:

If a non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment, including payment of amounts wrongly received, concerns a relationship existing between the parties, such as one arising out of a contract or a tort/delict, that is closely connected with that unjust enrichment, it shall be governed by the law that governs that relationship.

Background

Pursuant to a decision of German courts, a German notary was ordered to pay damages to a French bank for failure to comply with his obligation of due diligence (‘obligation de vigilance’: the judgment does not elaborate on this point). The notary’s claim against his civil liability insurer, German company HDI Versicherung, was rejected on the ground that the insurance contract did not cover damage intentionally caused by the insured party. However, pursuant to a German federal statute which requires the insurer to compensate even such damage, HDI Versicherung still compensated the bank. HDI Versicherung then sought to recover from the notary’s professional society (Chambre des notaires) and its insurer, but its claim was rejected by German courts on the ground that it had not been brought within the contractual time period. HDI Versicherung eventually brought a claim for unjust enrichment against the bank in France to obtain restitution of the amount paid under § 812 of the German Civil Code.

Ruling of the Metz Court of Appeal

In a judgment of 30 June 2020, the Court of Appeal of Metz ruled that German law applied to the action for restitution of payment wrongly received pursuant to Article 10(1) of the Rome II Regulation, on the ground that the compensation was paid by reason of the relationship existing between HDI Versicherung and the notary and of the event giving rise to the damage suffered by HDI Versicherung and the notary was governed by German law, and that the payment had occurred pursuant to mandatory provisions of German law.

The bank appealed and argued that German law cannot apply to the non-contractual obligation between the notary’s insurer and the bank as there was no existing relationship between them.

Ruling of the Cour de Cassation

The French Supreme Court ruled that neither a contract concluded by one of the parties to the non-contractual obligation with a third party, nor the performance of obligations imposed by mandatory provisions of the lex contractus of that contract could characterize the “relationship existing between the parties” in the meaning of Article 10(1) of the Rome II Regulation. Hence the law governing the contract could not apply to the unjust enrichment claim.

It held:

the relationship existing between the parties to the non-contractual obligation cannot result from a contract concluded by one of the parties with a third party, nor from the performance by a party of obligations arising from the contract imposed by the law applicable to this contract.

Assessment

The scope of the judgment is narrow. The only issue before the Court was whether the lower court had properly applied Article 10(1). The language of the provision clearly clearly limits its scope to existing relationships between the parties to the quasi-contractual claim. The lower court had applied it outside of its scope, and was wrong for this reason alone.

It would have been good to know how the Cour de cassation would have applied the other paragraphs of the Article 10, but it did not need to for the purpose of deciding the appeal, and unsurprisingly did not.

Article 10(2) provides for the application of the law of the common habitual residence of the parties, and was thus irrelevant for this case as well. Article 10(3) then provides for the application of the “law of the country in which the unjust enrichment took place“. It seems clear that this would have designated France, where the French bank had received the payment.

Finally, Article 10(4) provides for a common and general exception clause. In this context, it seems that the contract between HDI Versicherung and the notary should have been highly relevant. Article 10(4), however, provides that the exception clause should only be applied if the non-contractual obligation arising out of unjust enrichment would have been manifestly more closely connected with a country other than the country otherwise designated under Article 10. Would it be so in this case?

In Memoriam Prof. Konstantinos D. Kerameus (21.4.1937-26.12.2021)

Professor Kerameus started his academic career at the Law School of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki, in his home town, and completed his career at the University of Athens. He taught Civil Procedure, Comparative and International Procedural Law in Greek and other leading Universities abroad.

He was awarded Honorary Doctor of Laws by the Universities of Hamburg (1993), Paris II Pantheon-Assas (2000), Liege (2003) and Vienna (2003). He was the President of the International Academy of Comparative Law (1998-2006), Director of the Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law (1990-2007), member of the European Academy (since 1994), the International Union of Legal Science (since 1993) and the International Union of Procedural Law (since 1995)y. He represented Greece in the conference on the Lugano Convention, in the negotiations for the accession of Greece to the Brussels Convention, as well as in various committees for the harmonization of the law of contracts, torts and civil procedure in the EU.

His Report, co-authored with Dimitrios Evrigenis, on the accession of Greece in the Brussels Convention (OJ C-298/24-11-1986) has always been a leading guide in the field of European procedural law. The breadth of his interests also covered the work of the Hague Conference. In this context, he gave lectures on the topic of ‘Enforcement in the International Context’– Collected Courses of the Hague Academy of International Law (Volume 264), 1997.

——————————————

The 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments will make it possible for foreign, non-EU, decisions to be recognized under common terms in EU jurisdictions, and vice versa. The presentation of these developments is the main subject of the present issue (Focus).

The introduction (Praefatio) was conducted by the Greek Attorney General to the ECJ, Honorary President of the Council of State, Mr. Athanasios Rantos. The main topic of the issue was the subject of an online conference (3.12.2021), with the participation of experienced professionals on the topic in our country,and of leading foreign scientists, who participated in the works of the 2019 Hague Convention.

The general introduction was assigned to the Director of the Directorate-General for Justice of the European Commission, Dr. Andreas Stein, who participated in the works of the 2019 Convention as the head of the EU delegation.

The Chair of the meeting, Emeritus Professor of the Law School of Thessaloniki Ms. Anastasia Grammatikaki-Alexiou, who has repeatedly represented Greece in the works of the Plenary or Committees of the Hague Conference, and has taught at the  Hague Academy of International Law, outlined ‘[t]he great contribution of the Hague Conference in the field of private international law’.

Directly from the USA, the President of the American Association of Comparative Law, Professor of the Law School at Willamette University, Mr. Symeon Symeonides, who participated in the work of the 2019 Convention as the representative of the Republic of Cyprus, gave his valuable thoughts on the topic. Professor Symeonides presented the theme ‘The Hague Treaty for the Recognition of Foreign Decisions-The Lowest Common Denominator’, identifying the most interesting points of the Convention and highlighting critical aspects of its text.

Judge Dimitrios Titsias, Justice Counselor, Permanent Representation of Greece to the EU, explored ‘[t]he limits of EU’ s external jurisdiction over the Hague Conventions’. The rest of the panel analyzed the individual provisions of the Hague Conventions, which will be of considerable concern to our courts in the near future. Dr. Ioannis Revolidis, Lecturer of Media, Communications and Technology Law at the University of Malta, discussed the topic of the ‘Recognition and enforcement of international judgments after the revival of the Hague Convention’; Ms. Anastasia Kalantzi, Doctoral Candidate at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki analyzed the topic ‘Points of convergence and divergence of the Hague Convention of 2005 and Regulation 1215/2012 on issues of extension of jurisdiction’; Dr. Vassilios Sarigiannidis, Head of the competent authority at the Ministry of Justice, presented the issue of ‘The system of cooperation between Central Authorities in the framework of the implementation of the 1980 and 1996 Hague Conventions on the protection of children’.

Among the judgments presented in this issue, a special mention has to be made of the following: the ECJ decision of 18.5.2021, Asocia?ia ‘Forumul Judec?torilor din Rumania’, with a comment by the associate in the International Hellenic University Ms. Raf. Tsertsidou, on the relationship between the regulations on the organization of justice in Romania and the requirements of the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary; the ECJ decision of 9.9.2021, Toplofikatsia Sofia, with a case comment by Judge Mr. Ant.Vathrakokilis; the ECJ decision of 3.9.2020, mBank S.A./PA, with a case comment by Judge Ms. St.-Ag. Kapaktsi.

Concerning national court decisions, it is worth mentioning the 2020 Supreme Court of Cyprus judgment (No 122/13, 143/13), with a case comment by Cypriot jurists Dr. N. Mouttotos, University of Bremen, and Dr. N. Kyriakides, University of Nicosia, regarding the effect of the Directive No 93/13 on consumer contracts in the reversal of the final judgment under national law; the judgment of the Greek Supreme Court No 820/2021, with a note by Dr. Ap. Anthimos and Solicitor (England/Wales) Dr. K. Voulgarakis, on the obstruction of the right to judicial protection by orders of courts of another Member State, which led to the submission of relevant preliminary question to the ECJ, as well as the decision of the Athens First Instance Court No 312/2019, with a case note by Dr. Ch. Meidanis, on the role of the jurisdiction of torts in case of the fall of a Greek warplane in a NATO exercise in Spain.

In the column of Scientific Topics, the volume hosts a study by Dr. G.-A. Georgiadis, on the 10-year anniversary of the 2007 Hague Protocol on the law applicable to maintenance obligations, while the L&F Praxis section presents the main problems of the EAPO, which raise many practical concerns, by Judge Mr. I. Valmantonis.

Bianca Scrabak has recently published an innovative book on international jurisdiction in contract and tort under the Brussels Ia Regulation, in which she develops a comprehensive solution for cases in which Article 7(1) and 7(2) vest special jurisdiction in the courts of more than one Member State.

The different solutions adopted by the CJEU to mitigate the problems resulting from a multiplicity of places of ‘contract performance’ or ‘harmful events’ are well-known. They range from the infamous ‘mosaic approach’ developed in Case C-68/93 Shevill (most recently confirmed in Case C-251/20 Gtflix tv) to a variety of centre-of-gravity approaches (see, eg, Cases C-386/05 Color Drack, C-204/08 Rehder, C-19/09 Wood Floor, and C-352/13 CDC Hydrogen Peroxide) to the unavailability of special jurisdiction (Case C-256/00 Besix). Still, the Court regularly accepts the coexistence of multiple fora with special jurisdiction.

Now, Scrabak argues that this coexistence often violates the ‘principle of concentration of conflicts’, which she derives from Articles 5(2), 8, 21(1), 24, and 29–34 Brussels Ia, as well as the principles of legal certainty and proximity. After a detailed review of the existing case law, she comes to the conclusion that each of the approaches that have so far been applied by the CJEU also conflicts with core principles of the Regulation and fails to provide a unitary solution for both contract and tort cases.

Against this backdrop, Scrabak proposes an approach of ‘limited choices’ for the claimant: as a starting point, based on the wording of the Regulation, any claimant must be free to select any forum that fulfils the requirements of Articles 7(1) or 7(2), without any limitation of its jurisdiction (thus rejecting the mosaic approach); yet, to protect the legitimate interests of the defendant, certain fora must be excluded based on the remote character of their connection to the dispute. More specifically, Scrabak proposes to exclude all fora that can be considered subsidiary both in comparison to the overall tort or contractual obligation and in comparison to other available fora – which appears to require some kind of reverse centre-of-gravity analysis not dissimilar from a forum non conveniens test. While providing a serious alternative to the CJEU’s notoriously unconvincing approach to online torts, it can certainly be debated if this approach provides a better alternative to the answers found by the CJEU in all case. Still, Scrabak’s ‘principle of concentration of conflicts’ offers an interesting new vantage point and useful frame of reference to think about a wide range of seemingly unrelated scenarios.

The convenors of the SLS Conflict of Laws section, Lauren Clayton-Helm and Bobby Lindsay, would be delighted to receive abstract submissions from conflictoflaws.net readers, emphasising that there is an option to present virtually on the 8th September, with the 9th September reserved for in-person papers at Kings College, London. They have kindly shared the following call for papers.

SLS Conflict of Laws Section: Call for Papers/Panels for 2022 SLS Annual Conference at King’s College London – The links and connections to legal development.

This is a call for papers and panels for the conflict of laws section of the 2022 Society of Legal Scholars Annual Conference to be held at King’s College, from 6th – 9th September.  The conflict of laws section will meet in the second half of the conference on 8th – 9th September and will have four sessions, each lasting 90 minutes.

The Society of Legal Scholars’ 2022 annual conference explores how links and connections both within one legal system and across different legal systems work to influence the development of law.  Legal rules, ideas and concepts develop as a result of diverse influences, both internal and external to any legal system.   Existing studies have identified the importance of legal diffusion and of legal transplants between legal systems as agents of legal change and development.   Similarly, within one legal system the development of a particular subject matter is often undertaken as a result of borrowings or copying from another subject matter within the same legal system.  The importance of links and connections in legal development can be demonstrated in many different ways, including the examination of particular links between people, within institutional and political networks or with bodies in other legal systems. Proposals are invited for papers which consider, broadly or specifically, how links and connections have worked to influence legal development in any area of law.

The 2022 conference will be held in person at King’s College London on Tuesday 6th – Friday 9th September. A new online attendance option will allow delegates the opportunity to attend and to present papers virtually in the sessions held on the 7th and 8th of September, so, for the conflict of laws section, the 8th of September.  When submitting an abstract you must indicate whether you intend to present your paper in person or virtually in the event your proposal is accepted.  It will not be possible for presenters to deliver their paper online on the days which are listed as in person only since the facilities will be unavailable. The organisers anticipate that there may be somewhat greater opportunities to present papers in person. Papers which have been accepted on the basis that they are to be delivered in person cannot later be delivered online.

Doctoral students are very welcome and are encouraged to submit papers for consideration in the Subject Sections Programme. There will not be a separate doctoral stream at the 2022 conference.

If you are interested in delivering a paper or organising a panel, please submit your paper abstract or panel details by 11:59pm UK time on Friday 25th March 2022.  All abstracts and panel details must be submitted through the Oxford Abstracts conference system which can be accessed using the following link – https://app.oxfordabstracts.com/stages/3743/submitter – and following the instructions (select ‘Track’ for the relevant subject section). If you registered for Oxford Abstracts for last year’s conference, please ensure that you use the same e-mail address this year if that address remains current. For those whose papers are accepted, the original submission offers the facility to upload a full paper nearer the time. If you experience any issues in using Oxford Abstracts, please contact slsconference@mosaicevents.co.uk.

Decisions will be communicated by the end of April.

We welcome proposals for papers and panels on any issue relating to the conflict of laws. We welcome proposals representing a full range of intellectual perspectives and methodological approaches in the subject section, and from those at all stages of their careers.

Those wishing to present a paper should submit a title and abstract of around 300 words. Those wishing to propose a panel should submit a document outlining the theme and rationale for the panel and the names of the proposed speakers (who must have agreed to participate) and their abstracts.  Sessions are 90 minutes in length and so we recommend panels of three to four speakers, though the conference organisers reserve the right to add speakers to panels in the interests of balance and diversity.

As the SLS is keen to ensure that as many members with good quality papers as possible are able to present, speakers should not present twice at the conference at the expense of another credible paper.  With this in mind, when you submit an abstract via Oxford Abstracts you will be asked to note if you are also responding to calls for papers or panels from other sections.

Please also note that the SLS offers two prizes. First, The Best Paper Prize, which can be awarded to academics at any stage of their career and which is open to those presenting papers individually or within a panel.  The Prize carries a £300 monetary award and the winning paper will, subject to the usual process of review and publisher’s conditions, appear in Legal Studies.  To be eligible:

• speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS (Where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be members. The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final.)
• papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word);
• papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11:59pm UK time on Monday 29th August;
• papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication; and
• papers must have been accepted by a convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented at the Annual Conference.

In 2020 the Society launched the Best Paper by a Doctoral Student Prize, which is open to currently registered doctoral students who are members of the Society. The Prize is £300. There is no link to publication in Legal Studies arising from this award, but any winner would be welcome to submit their paper for consideration by the Society’s journal. To be eligible:

• speakers must be fully paid-up members of the SLS who are Doctoral students. (Where a paper has more than one author, all authors eligible for membership of the Society under its rule 3 must be members and all authors must be Doctoral students, whatever their discipline). The decision as to eligibility of any co-authors will be taken by the Membership Secretary, whose decision will be final;
• papers must not exceed 12,000 words including footnotes (as counted in Word);
• papers must be uploaded to the paperbank by 11:59pm UK time on Monday 29th August;
• papers must not have been published previously or have been accepted or be under consideration for publication; and
• papers must have been accepted by a convenor in a subject section and an oral version of the paper must be presented at the Annual Conference.
• Where a paper eligible for this prize wins the Best Paper Prize, the judges may at their discretion award the prize for Best Paper by a Doctoral Student to a different nominated paper
• The judges may announce a shortlist at their discretion with the winner to be announced by the first week in November.

We have also been asked to remind you that all speakers will need to book and pay to attend the conference and that they will need to register for the conference by Friday 17th June 2021 in order to secure their place within the programme, though please do let us know if this deadline is likely to pose any problems for you. Booking information will be circulated in due course, and will open after the decisions on the response to the calls are made.

With best wishes,

Dr Lauren Clayton-Helm
Dr Bobby Lindsay

 

 

 

The European Expertise and Expert Institute (EEEI) is seeking to recruit a project assistant for a part time position to work on a European project of the EEEI, Find your Expert II (Findex II).

The Findex II project is funded by the European Commission and aims at establishing a common definition of experts and improve the identification and selection of experts at European level.

The project is based on the following statement: Although judicial experts play an indispensable role in civil and criminal justice, there is no common definition of “judicial expert” (also called “expert witness” or forensic expert) across Europe.  Court mostly rely on the result of the expertise when rendering their decision. It is of crucial importance for a fair justice in Europe that experts giving their opinion to courts meet basic professional principles such as competence, independence, impartiality, and integrity as well as a minimal level of professional standards.

Another essential aspect is the possibility for the court to select the “right” expert, i.e., the one that will be able to answer the court’s question on a given case quickly and efficiently.

In order to enhance and converge these aspects throughout Europe, EEEI and EuroExpert as both major European actors of expertise propose to work on: a common understanding of expertise and the use of experts in the judicial field; convergence of nomenclatures, i.e. the lists of expertise fields; requirements of a future IT-search tool for expert.

The job of the project assistant will consist in assisting the various actors of the project. The EEEI expects that candidates will be students at master level or higher.

More details on the job can be found here. More details on the project can be found here.

Hill v Generali Zrt [2021] EWHC 3381 (QB) is an appeal from the County Court and discussed whether a subrogated claim by an insurer (Admiral) can be brought in the name of an English motorist in an English court together with his claim for uninsured losses against a Hungarian insurer (Generali) in respect of a pre-Brexit accident in Germany. The county court judge held that it could not but acknowledged that the question was not free from doubt and granted the motorist permission to appeal. Upon appeal the opposite conclusion was reached.

The case once again therefore concerns Brussels Ia’s insurance title which was recently at play at the CJEU in Betty Tattersal aka Seguros Catalana Occidente. Pepperall J summarises the ordinary application of the insurance title as follows [8]

Re the insured losses (the repair costs): __Generali can be sued in Hungary, being its place of domicile, or Germany, being the place of the accident: A4(1), 7(2), 11(1)(a) and 12 BIa___As the insured, Mr Hill can also sue Generali in England & Wales, being his place of domicile: A11(1)(b).___ As the insurer, and subject to being permitted to join an action already proceeding in another jurisdiction, Admiral cannot take advantage of the more favourable rules as to jurisdiction available to the policyholder, the insured and beneficiaries. 

There is therefore no dispute as to Mr Hill’s right to sue for his uninsured losses (the devaluation of the car) in England & Wales. The issue is whether Admiral’s subrogated claim:  is a claim brought by the insured such that it may be pursued in England & Wales under Article 11(1)(b); or is a claim that must be treated as brought by the insurer such that it cannot, subject to questions of joinder, be pursued in E&W.

Relevant recitals echo the general principles with which the CJEU approaches the issue: [10]:

“15 The rules of jurisdiction should be highly predictable and founded on the principle that jurisdiction is generally based on the defendant’s domicile. Jurisdiction should always be available on this ground save in a few well-defined situations in which the subject-matter of the dispute or the autonomy of the parties warrants a different connecting factor …

16 In addition to the defendant’s domicile, there should be alternative grounds of jurisdiction based on a close connection between the court and the action or in order to facilitate the sound administration of justice. The existence of a close connection should ensure legal certainty and avoid the possibility of the defendant being sued in a court of a Member State which he could not reasonably have foreseen …

18 In relation to insurance, consumer and employment contracts, the weaker party should be protected by rules of jurisdiction more favourable to his interests than the general rules.

21 In the interests of the harmonious administration of justice it is necessary to minimise the possibility of concurrent proceedings and to ensure that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in different Member States. There should be a clear and effective mechanism for resolving cases of lis pendens and related actions …”

Part of the challenge is the different way in which claims are assigned /and or subrogated across jurisdictions [23]. In many European legal systems insurers take an assignment of the insured’s claim and sue to recover their outlay in their own names. In the common law’s approach the claim for insured losses remains vested in the insured.

CJEU Sovag is discussed for the joinder elements of the case and CJEU Kabeg is said not to be a right fit for in that case the insurer was the assignee of the claim for insured losses and able to sue in its own name.

The judge reaches his conclusion that the subrogated claim may be brought in E&W on the echo of SOVAG, hence underlining [34] the policy of minimising multiple proceedings and ensuring that irreconcilable judgments are not given but also in demonstrating practicality. The CJEU arguably in Betty Tattersal (the judge did not have the benefit of that judgment) took a different direction  on related issues and I find them both equally persuasive. It is time the insurance section be sorted out and the current EC evaluation of BIa would be a good trigger for same.

Geert.

1/2 Hill v Generali Zrt [2021] EWHC 3381 (QB)#travellaw, Brussels Ia, insurance
Subrogated claim by insurer can be brought in name of EN motorist in E&W court together with his claim for uninsured losses against a Hungarian insurer in respect of pre-Brexit accident in Germany

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

The Assas International Law Review (Revue de droit international d’Assas) is an open access online journal published once a year by the doctoral school of the University. It features articles on public and private international law written by professors and doctoral students.

The main theme of the 2021 issue is art and international law.

The issue features seven articles on this topic (including one on litigation aimed at returning cultural objects). It also includes short articles summarizing the doctoral theses recently defended at the University and four more articles on various topics.

Of particular note for private international law scholars are the following articles.

In the first article, Marie Elodie Ancel offers a French perspective on the judgment of the UK Supreme Court in Enka v. Chubb (La loi applicable à la Convention d’arbitrage au Royaume-Uni: les enseignements de l’arrêt Enka). She concludes as follows:

Par conséquent, le raisonnement conflictualiste tel qu’il est pratiqué par la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni ne présente pas de pertinence particulière dans le contexte français. À l’inverse, il serait concevable pour la Cour suprême du Royaume-Uni de s’inspirer de la méthode française et de forger des règles matérielles que les juges anglais pourraient appliquer pour statuer, aux divers moments que le droit anglais leur ménage pour ce faire, sur la validité, l’étendue ou l’interprétation de la clause d’arbitrage. D’ailleurs, comme the validation principle, les présomptions et contre-présomptions censées permettre d’établir un éventuel choix tacite de la loi applicable à la clause d’arbitrage ont la nature de règles matérielles du for. La Cour suprême démontre d’ailleurs un indéniable talent pour créer de telles règles… En théorie, elle pourrait donc l’exercer pour définir directement le régime substantiel des clauses d’arbitrage. Cependant, puisque le Royaume-Uni a intégré la Convention de New York dans sa législation de manière stricte et sans profiter de l’article VII (1) et que la Cour suprême préconise d’appréhender la clause d’arbitrage de la même manière, quel que soit le moment où le juge anglais est amené à en vérifier la validité ou l’efficacité, il ne faut pas espérer de révolution méthodologique outre-Manche. La méthode conflictualiste y sera sans doute encore longtemps pratiquée, quitte à réviser et reconcevoir les présomptions censées établir un choix tacite de la loi applicable. Les deux rives de la Manche ne sont pas près de se réunir.

The second article is written in English by Diana Reisman and is concerned with 2019 Hague Judgments Convention (Breaking Bad: Fail-Safes to the Hague Judgement Convention).

This Note explores a contingency that is neither acknowledged nor addressed by the Judgments Convention: a marked deterioration in the judiciary of a party following the expiration of the twelve-month suspension period. When a state obligates itself, under the terms of the Judgments Convention, to enforce the civil and commercial judgments of another State Party, it does so with confidence in the quality of the judicial culture of that other state, including the degree of fairness and judicial transparency with which cases are prosecuted. However, the integrity of the judiciary is not necessarily enduring, nor is it immune to the effects of political change in the state. Suppose that a State Party whose judicial culture was judged fair and transparent at the time of ratification or accession experiences internal change, leading to a sudden or a gradual alteration in its judicial culture, which causes concerns for some of the other treaty partners. As drafted, the Judgments Convention would oblige the other States Parties to continue to perform their treaty obligations to that State Party. Herein lies the conundrum of the Judgments Convention: It relies on the assumption that its parties’ quality of justice is stable over time such that their private law judgments should be enforced on a fast track in each other’s courts. Should the quality of one state’s justice system later decline, litigants contesting enforcement of one of that state’s civil judgments would have the burden of conforming their objections to the Judgments Convention’s narrow grounds for nonrecognition. Other States Parties would find themselves in the position of recognizing and enforcing problematic civil judgments issued from the compromised State Party.

The 2021 Issue is freely available here.

The fourth issue of 2021 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Antonietta Di Blase, (formerly) Professor at the University “Roma Tre”, Genitorialità della coppia omosessuale e riconoscimento dello status filiationis nell’ordinamento italiano (Same-Sex Couples and Recognition of Parentage in the Italian Legal System) [in Italian]

This paper addresses the recognition of the status of the child when a same-sex couple accesses techniques of assisted reproduction abroad. According to recent European and Italian Constitutional case law, a form of legal recognition in favor of both partners is due when at least one of them is genetically linked to the child, on account of the duty to grant the child’s identity within a family. The need and the legal form of recognition has to be assessed in the light of the interests of the child, which should prevail over national rules limiting the use of medically assisted reproduction.

Luigi Fumagalli, Professor at the University of Milan, Problemi vecchi e nuovi nella cooperazione per l’assunzione delle prove all’estero in materia civile: la rifusione della disciplina nell’Unione europea (Old and New Problems in the Cooperation for the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil Matters: The Recasting of the EU Regime) [in Italian]

The analysis of Regulation (EU) 2020/1783 of 25 November 2020 provides an opportunity to review the overall regulatory framework of cooperation in the taking of evidence applicable in the relations between the Member States of the European Union, to underline the elements of novelty or to detect the critical issues that still exist. It shows that the mechanisms envisaged appear to be suitable for achieving the objectives which the uniform framework sets itself: they oblige the authorities of the Member States to cooperate, almost without exception; the instruments by which this is achieved are shown to be capable of allowing, in reasonably short terms and without excessive formalism, the taking, in a manner which is absolutely tolerable for the Member State in which it is carried out, of evidence that can be used in the proceedings for which it is required. The main novelty profile consists in the wide space left to the use of communication technologies for the implementation of judicial assistance mechanisms: they mark the distance with respect to the oldest communication tools and touch each “segment” of the overall activity through which evidence is taken in a State other than that of the trial. However, the framework defined by Regulation 2020/1783 continues to suffer from certain limitations. In the first place, one cannot fail to highlight a series of formal (relating to the Italian version of the text) or conceptual inaccuracies. Alongside this, it should be noted the strong constraints that derive, for the implementation of the assistance procedures brought by the Regulation, from domestic procedural law, which the European legislation has not modified (nor has it intended to modify). Within these limits, the rules laid down appear, however, to take into account the complexity of the procedural mechanisms involved in the implementation of international judicial assistance procedures, and mark a step forward in the integration between the systems, laying the foundations for further developments.

Alberto Malatesta, Professor at the University “Cattaneo LIUC” in Castellanza, Circolazione delle sentenze tra Unione europea e Regno Unito: a favore di una cooperazione in seno alla Conferenza dell’Aja (Circulation of Judgments between the European Union and the United Kingdom: In Support of a Cooperation in the Framework of the Hague Conference) [in Italian]

This essay outlines the various options for a future cooperation between the EU and the UK in the field of recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. After examining some alternatives, it focuses especially on the 2007 Lugano Convention, which appears to be a good tool for this purpose. However, pursuant to Art. 72(3) of the Convention itself, the EU has recently objected to the UK’s application of accession. The Author explains the reasons why the EU’s position is appropriate from the point of view of the Member States’ interests and upholds the Hague Conference of Private International Law as the best venue where cooperation between the EU and the UK can be strengthened.

The following comments are also featured:

Silvia Marino, Associate Professor at the University of Insubria, La climate change litigation nella prospettiva del diritto internazionale privato e processuale (Climate Change Litigation from the Perspective of Private International and Procedural Law) [in Italian]

The present article tackles the classic private international law issues in the field of climate change litigation. The introduction offers a definition of climate change litigation according to the current case-law. The article then proceeds to investigate international law commitments on climate change and environmental protection, noting that no specific international conventions exist on the subject-matter. Therefore, the EU system within the civil judicial cooperation appears relevant. Against this background, Regulations EU No 1215/2012 and No 864/2007 are examined in the light of the climate change litigation, stressing their potential solutions and problems within this field. In this framework, some recent suggestions and proposals for the improvement of the private international law systems in the human rights’ field are discussed. Finally, the concluding remarks pay due attention to the efficiencies of the current EU system, yearning for a more articulated international cooperation in all the possible involved facets.

Emilia Maria Magrone, Researcher at the University of Bari, Pluralità di fonti per la tutela di un minore straniero presente in Italia e necessità di un loro coordinamento (Plurality of Sources in the Protection of a Foreign Child Present in Italy and Need for Coordination) [in Italian]

This article analyses a decree issued by the Court of Appeal of Bari rejecting the complaint of an Albanian citizen against a previous decree of the Family Tribunal of Bari. The Tribunal had ordered the forfeiture of the woman from parental responsibility towards her young child (an Albanian citizen, as well) and other measures for the protection of the child. The cross-border features of the case have provided the opportunity for highlighting the different regulatory sources likely to be applied in the field of protection of foreign children such as Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, the 1996 Hague Convention on the protection of children and the Italian rules on jurisdiction and applicable law, and to verify whether the relevant rules relating to both jurisdiction and applicable law have been correctly applied. In this regard, the decree of the Court of Appeal is substantially compliant with the best interests of the child, but raises some perplexities for the failure to ascertain the habitual residence of the child and consequently for having applied the internal rule on tacit acceptance of jurisdiction rather than Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003. Another unclear aspect of the Court’s ruling is that it did not specify on the basis of which conflict-of-law rule Italian law was applied.

In addition to the foregoing, in this issue Fausto Pocar, Professor Emeritus at the University of Milan, penned a moving tribute in memoriam of Professor Alegría Borrás.

Finally, this issue features the following book review by Francesca C. Villata, Professor at the University of Milan: Andrew DICKINSON, Edwin PEEL (eds), A Conflict of Laws Companion. Essays in Honour of Adrian Briggs, Oxford University Press, Oxford, 2021, pp. XLIX-377.

Today, Advocate General Maciej Szpunar delivered his Opinion in the above mentioned case on the concept of „habitual residence“ under Council Regulation (EC) 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, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, as well as under Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, as well as impacts of Article 47 of the EU Charta on Fundamental Rights in relation to a forum necessitatis as referred to in Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009. 

Opening by a quote from the General Course of 1986 by Paul Lagarde for the Hague Academy of International Law „ ‘The principle of proximity … is nearest to life and is a title of nobility. It carries with it a lesson in modesty by teaching us that no political will, no judge, however pure his or her intention, can claim jurisdiction, in the long term, to rule according to his or her laws on life relationships that are outside his or her discretion.’, the Opinion results, after careful deliberation, in the following elements for a concept of „habitual residence“:

„1.      The spouses’ status as contract staff of the European Union in a third State is not a decisive factor in determining the place of habitual residence, whether in the meaning of Articles 3 and 8 of Council Regulation (EC) 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, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, or Article 3 of Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations.

2.      It is not possible, for the purposes of determining the children’s place of habitual residence, within the meaning of Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003, only to take into consideration criteria such as the mother’s nationality, the fact that she resided in a Member State before her marriage, the nationality of the minor children and their birth in that Member State.

3.      With regard to the application for divorce, if the court seised cannot establish its jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 3 to 5 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 6 of that regulation then precludes the application of the residual clause contained in Article 7(1) of that regulation and, consequently, the defendant – a national of a Member State – can be sued only before the courts of that Member State.

So far as concerns parental responsibility, if the court seised does not have jurisdiction under Articles 8 to 13 of Regulation No 2201/2003, Article 14 of that regulation applies regardless of the children’s place of habitual residence and the nationality of the defendant.

4.      Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 must be interpreted as meaning that the state of necessity may result from exceptional, very serious or emergency situations such that proceedings cannot reasonably be brought or conducted or would be impossible in a third State with which the dispute is closely connected. Those conditions are met, in particular, when the court of the third State with which the dispute is closely connected refuses to exercise jurisdiction or there are abusive procedural requirements, when, due to civil unrest or natural disasters, it is dangerous to go to certain places and the third State’s normal activity is affected, and, lastly, when access to justice is unduly hampered, in particular when legal representation is prohibitively expensive, when the length of proceedings is excessively long, when there is serious corruption within the judicial system, or when there are failures concerning the fundamental requirements for a fair hearing or systemic failures. The parties are not required to demonstrate that they initiated or attempted to initiate proceedings in that State with a negative result.

5.      Articles 7 and 14 of Regulation No 2201/2003, relating to subsidiary jurisdiction in matters of divorce, legal separation or marriage annulment respectively, and Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009, with regard to the forum necessitatis in matters relating to maintenance, must be interpreted by the court seised in the light of Article 47 of the Charter. National rules on residual jurisdiction, including those relating to the forum necessitatis, must be applied in the light of that same article.“

These findings have emerged from a reference by the Audiencia Provincial de Barcelona (Provincial Court, Barcelona), by judgment of 15 September 2020, in which no less than six rather detailed questions were raised (para.) 26, with a view to the following facts (paras. 17 et seq.):

„17. M P A, a citizen of Spanish nationality, and LC D N M T, a citizen of Portuguese nationality, were married on 25 August 2010 at the Spanish Embassy in Guinea-Bissau. They have two minor children, born on 10 October 2007 and 30 July 2012 in Manresa (Barcelona, Spain). The children have dual Spanish and Portuguese nationality.

18. The spouses lived in Guinea-Bissau from August 2010 to February 2015 and then moved to Lomé (Togo). Following their de facto separation, in July 2018, the applicant in the main proceedings and the children continued to reside in the marital home in Togo and the spouse resided in a hotel in that country.

19.      The spouses are both employed by the European Commission as contract staff of the European Union in its delegation in Togo. The referring court states that contract staff – servants of the European Union in the EU Member States – have the status of diplomatic staff of the European Union only in the country of employment.

20.      On 6 March 2019, the applicant in the main proceedings brought an application before the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manresa (Court of First Instance, Manresa, Spain) for divorce and sought the dissolution of the matrimonial property, the determination of the regime and procedures for exercising custody and parental responsibility over the minor children, the grant of a maintenance allowance for the children and rules for the use of the family home in Lomé. She also requested the adoption of interim measures.

21.      The defendant in the main proceedings claimed that the Juzgado de Primera Instancia de Manresa (Court of First Instance, Manresa) did not have international jurisdiction. By order of 9 September 2019, the court declared that it lacked international jurisdiction to hear the case on the ground that the parties were not habitually resident in Spain.

22.      The applicant in the main proceedings brought an appeal against that decision before the referring court. She claims that both spouses enjoy diplomatic status as accredited servants of the European Union in the country of employment and that this status extends to the minor children.“

Willem 1, Buddhist mummy. Statue (L), CT scan (R). (Photos: Drents Museum)

by Zhen Chen, PhD researcher in the Department of Private International Law, University of Groningen, the Netherlands (ORCID ID: https://orcid.org/0000-0001-5323-4271)[1]

In Buddha Mummy Statue case, the Chinese village committees sued the Dutch defendants for the return of a stolen golden statue which contains a 1000-year old mummified buddhist. The parties had different opinions on the legal nature of the mummy contained in the statue. The Chinese court classified the statue as a cultural property and applied the choice of law over movable properties provided in Article 37 of Chinese Private International Law (lex rei sitae). Based on a comparative study, this article argues that a mummy does not fall within the traditional dichotomy between a person and a property. Instead, a mummy should be classified as a transitional existence between a person and a property. If the classification of a mummy has to be confined to the traditional dichotomy, a mummy can be regarded as a quasi-person, or a special kind of property. Following this new classification, a new choice of law rule should be established. In this regard, the Belgian Private International Law Act, which adopts the lex originis rule supplement by the lex rei sitae, is a forerunner. This article advocates that the adoption of the lex originis rule may help to stop the vicious circle of illegal possession and to facilitate the return of stolen cultural objects, especially those containing human remains, to their country of origin.

 

1. Gold or God?

As to the legal nature of the Buddha Mummy Statue in dispute, from the Chinese villagers’ perspective, the mummy contained in the golden statute is a person or God, instead of a property. Specifically, the mummified buddhist Master Zhanggong was their ancestor, who used to live in their village and has been worshipped as their spiritual and religious God for over 1000 years. Master Zhanggong was preserved in a statue moulded with gold to prevent decomposition and to maintain his immortality. The villagers celebrated Master Zhanggong’s birthday every year with feast, music and dance performance, which has become their collective memory and shared belief.

In contrast, from the Dutch art collector’ perspective, the golden statute containing a mummy is a property not a person. It is merely a cultural property with great economic value and worthy of collection or investment. Thus, it is not surprising that the Dutch collector asked for a compensation of 20 million Euro, of which the Chinese villagers whose annual income was around 1000 Euro could not afford it.

The Chinese village committees sued the Dutch art collector both in China and in the Netherlands. The Chinese village committees asserted that the mummified Master Zhanggong contained in the statue was a corpse within the meaning of the Dutch Liability Decree, and the ownership thereof was excluded under the Dutch law.[2] The claimants as the trustees or the agents had the right of disposal.[3] The Dutch art collector argued that the mummified monk contained in the golden statue was not a corpse, as the organs of the monk were missing. The Dutch court did not touch upon the issue of classification of the Buddha Mummy Statue, as the case was dismissed on the basis that the Chinese village committees had no legal standing nor legal personality in the legal proceedings.[4]

 

2. The lex situs under Article 37 Chinese Private International Law Act

The Chinese court classified the Buddha Mummy Statue as a cultural property and applied the law of the country where the theft occurred, namely Chinese law, by virtue of Article 37 Chinese Private International Law Act. Such classification is not satisfactory, as the mummy in dispute was essentially considered as a property. Chinese law was applied because the place of theft was in China and the lex situs was construed by the Chinese court as the lex furti. However, what if the mummy was stolen in a third country during the transportation or an exhibition? The lex furti does not necessarily happen to be the lex originis in all cases involving stolen cultural objects.

Moreover, cultural objects containing human remains are special in comparison with other cultural objects without, as human remains contain biological information of a person. The application of the traditional lex rei sitae rule to all cultural objects, including those containing human remains, is far from satisfactory. In general, the law on dead human bodies precedes over the sale of corpses, and no person, including a good faith purchaser can own somebody else’s corpse both in civil law and common law systems.[5] A corpse must not be downgraded to the status of a property.[6] The characterization of human remains as properties objectifies human remains and thus may violate human dignity.[7] Therefore, it is necessary to distinguish cultural objects containing human remains from other types of cultural objects. The question is how to draw a distinction and what is the legal nature of a cultural object containing human remains, such as a mummy. If a mummy does not fall within the scope of traditional category of a person nor a property, does it mean a new category need to be created? In this regard, the classification of the legal nature of a fertilized embryo in Shen v. Liu may be relevant,[8] since the judge addressed the issue by thinking out of the box and provided a new solution.

 

3. Is a Fertilized Embryo a Property or a Person?

Shen v. Liu was the first case in China that involved the ownership of frozen embryos. Specifically, Shen and Liu, who got married in 2010 and died in 2013 in a car accident, left four frozen fertilized embryos in a local hospital. The parents of Shen (Mr and Mrs Shen), sued the parents of Liu (Mr and Mrs Liu), who also lost their only child, claiming the inheritance of the four frozen fertilized embryos of the deceased young couple.[9] The local hospital where the embryos were preserved was a third party in this case.

 

3.1 A property, a special property, or ‘a transitional existence between person and property’?

The third party Gulou Hospital argued that the frozen embryos do not have the nature of a property. Since Mr. and Mrs. Shen had passed away, the expired embryos should be discarded. Neither the plaintiffs nor the defendants should inherit the embryos.[10] The first-instance court held that fertilized embryos had the potential to develop into life, and thus are special properties that contain biological characteristics of a future life. Unlike normal properties, fertilized embryos can not be the subject of succession, nor be bought or sold.[11]

Nevertheless, the appellate court took the view that embryos were ‘a transitional existence between people and properties’. Therefore, embryos have a higher moral status than non-living properties and deserve special respect and protection. The embryo ethically contains the genetic information of the two families and is closely related to the parents of the deceased couple. Emotionally speaking, the embryo carries personal rights and interests, such as the grief and spiritual comfort for the elderly. The court held that the supervision and disposal of the embryos by the parents from these two families was in line with human ethics and can also relieve the pain of bereavement for both parties.[12] Clearly, the court did not classify the fertilized embryos as people or properties. Instead, the embargo was considered as ‘a transitional existence between a person and a property’, since it is not biotic nor abiotic but a third type in-between.

 

3.2 A mummy as ‘a continuum between a person and a property’

With regard to the distinction between a person and a property, the judgment of Shen v. Liu shows that the Chinese court was not confined to the traditional dichotomy between a person and a property. The same should be applicable to mummies. Embryos and mummies have something in common, as they are two different kinds of life forms. Whereas the embryo in Shen v. Liu is the form of life which exists before the birth of a human being, the mummy in Buddha Mummy Statue case is another form of life which exists after the death of a human being.

Embryos and mummies, as the pre-birth transition and after-death extension of life forms of a human being, involve morality and ‘human dignity’.[13] Such transitional existence or continuum of life forms contains personal rights and interests for related parties, which may justify the adoption of a new classification. As a special form of life, embryos and mummies should not be considered as merely a property nor a person. The strict distinction between people and properties does not apply well in embryos and mummies. Instead, they should be regarded as ‘a transitional existence between a person and a property’ or ‘a continuum between a person and a property’. If it is not plausible to create a third type for the purpose of classification, they should be regarded, at least, as a quasi-person, or a special property with personal rights and interests. An embryo and a mummy cannot be owned by someone as a property. Rather, a person can be a custodian of  an embryo and a mummy. This is also the reason why cultural objects containing human remains should be treated differently.

 

4. A New Classification Requires a New Choice of Law Rule

In order to distinguish cultural objects containing human remains from other cultural objects, or more generally to distinguish cultural properties from other properties in the field of private international law, a new choice of law rule needs to be established. In this regard, the 2004 Belgian Private International Law Act might be the forerunner and serve as a model for not only other EU countries but also non-EU countries.[14]

 

 4.1 The lex originis overrides the lex situs

The traditional lex situs rule is based on the location of a property and does not take cultural property protection into consideration. Courts resolving cultural object disputes consistently fail to swiftly and fairly administer justice, and much of the blame can be put on the predominant lex situs rule.[15] The lex situs rule allows parties to choose more favorable countries and strongly weakens attempts to protect cultural objects.[16]

In Belgium, as a general rule, the restitution of illicitly-exported cultural objects is subject to the lex originis, rather than the lex rei sitae. Article 90 of 2004 Belgian Private International Law Act stipulated that if one object that has been recorded in a national list of cultural heritage is delivered outside this country in a way that against its law, the lawsuit filed in this country for the return of that particular object shall apply the law of the requesting country. This provision designates the law of the country of origin, also known as the lex originis rule. In comparison with the lex rei sitae or the lex furti rule, the lex originis rule is more favorable to the original owners

 

4.2 Facilitating the return of human remains to their country of origin

The establishment of a new choice of law rule for cultural relics containing human remains or cultural objects in general is in line with the national and international efforts of facilitating the return of stolen or illicitly cultural objects to their country of origin. Mummies exist not only in China, but also in many other countries, such as as Japan, Egypt, Germany, Hungary, USA, Russia, and Italy. The adoption of the lex originis rule could facilitate the return of stolen or illicitly exported cultural objects which contain human remains to their country of origin or culturally-affiliated place. This objective is shared in many international conventions and national legislations.

 

5. Concluding remarks

The mummy Master Zhanggong has not been returned to the Chinese village committees yet, since the Dutch defendants have lodged an appeal. This article argues that, in the light of the classification of frozen embryos in Shen v. Liu, mummies should be classified as ‘a transitional existence between a person and a property’. A new classification calls for a new choice of law rule. In this regard, the 2004 Belgian Private International Law Act might serve as a model, according to which the lex originis rule prevails over the traditional lex situs rule, unless the original owner chooses the application of the traditional lex situs or the lex originis rule does not provide protection to the good faith purchaser. The Chinese Private International Law should embrace such approach, since the application of the lex originis may facilitate the return of cultural relics, including but not limited to those containing human remains such as mummies, to their culturally affiliated community, ethnic or religious groups.

—

[1] This is a shortened version of the article published in the Chinese Journal of Comparative Law with open access https://doi.org/10.1093/cjcl/cxac006. Related blogposts are Buddha Mummy Statue case and Conflict of Laws of Cultural Property.

[2] Chinese Village Committees v. Oscar Van Overeem, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2018:8919, point 3.1.

[3] Ibid.

[4] Ibid., point 4.2.5.

[5] J. Huang, ‘Protecting Non-indigenous Human Remains under Cultural Heritage Law’, 14 Chinese Journal of International Law 2015, p. 724.

[6] E.H. Ayau and H. Keeler, Injustice, Human Rights, and Intellectual Savagery, in Human Remains in Museums and Collections, DOI: https://doi.org/10.18452/19383, p. 91.

[7] Ibid.

[8]  Mr and Mrs Shen v. Mr and Mrs Liu, Jiangsu Province Yixing Municipality People’s Court, (2013) Yi Min Chu Zi No 2729; Jiangsu Province Wuxi Municipality Intermediate People’s Court, (2014) Xi Min Zhong Zi No 01235.

[9]  Ibid.

[10] Ibid. The third party also stated that after the embryos are taken out, the only way to keep the embryos alive is surrogacy, which is illegal in China, thus both parties have no right to dispose the embryos.

[11] Ibid. Since the first-instance court held that embryos cannot be transferred or inherited, the case was dismissed in accordance with Article 5 of the General Principle of Civil Law and Article 3 of the Inheritance Law of the PRC.

[12] Ibid. The appellate court analyzed that after the death of Shen and Liu, their parents were the only subjects and most-related parties that care about the fate of embryos. Thus, it was appropriate to rule that the parents of Shen and Liu have the right to supervise and dispose the embryos. However, such supervision and disposal should abide by the law, and must not violate public order and good morals nor infringe the interests of other people.

[13] While birth means a definite initiation into human society, death indicates a final termination of a natural person, which both involve the dignity of an individual human or even humankind. H.G. Koch, ‘The Legal Status of the Human Embryo’, in E. Hildt and D. Mieth (eds.), Vitro Fertilisation in the 1990s, Routledge 1998, p. 3.

[14] T. Szabados, ‘In Search of the Holy Grail of the Conflict of Laws of Cultural Property: Recent Trends in European Private International Law Codifications’, 27 International Journal of Cultural Property 2020, p. 335.

[15] D. Fincham, ‘How Adopting the Lex Originis Rule Can Impede the Flow of Illicit Cultural Property’, 32 Columbia Journal of Law & the Arts 2008, p.116.

[16] Ibid, p.130.

 

A new book entitled Blurry Boundaries of Public and Private International Law: Towards Convergence or Divergent Still? and co-edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (of the University of Tasmania) and Dharmita Prasad (Jindal Global Law School, O.P Jindal Global University) has just been released by Springer.

The description states that the book examines interactions and discusses intersectionality between public international law and private international law. With contributions from scholars from the USA, Canada, Australia, India, and the EU, this book brings out truly international perspectives on the topic. The contributions are arranged in four themes — Public international law and private international law: historical and theoretical considerations of the boundary; Harmonisation of private international law by public international law instruments: evaluation of process, problems and effectiveness; Case studies of intersectionality between public international law and private international law; and Future trends in the relationship between public international law and private international law.

The Foreword by Ralf Michaels is followed by these chapters:

Chapter 1: Public International Law and Private International Law: Setting scene for intersectionality – Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dharmita Prasad
Chapter 2 – Private International Law’s origins as a branch of the universal law of nations – Marco Basile
Chapter 3 – Recognition – A story of how the two worlds meet – Dulce Lopes
Chapter 4 – Forum non conveniens in Australia – how much weight should be given to comity? – Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit
Chapter 5 – International rule of law and its relation to harmonisation – Dharmita Prasad
Chapter 6 – A quest for the missing link in the resolution of international investment disputes affecting host states’ citizens under public and private international law – Richard Mlambe
Chapter 7 – Visualising the role of international rule of law in claim funding by third parties – Gautam Mohanty
Chapter 8 – Article 79 CISG: Testing the effectiveness of the CISG in international trade through the lens of the COVID-19 outbreak – Nevena Jevremovic
Chapter 9 – Determination of legal effects of COVID-19 related export bans and restrictions on international sale of goods contracts: Interplay between public and private international law – Burcu Yuksel Ripley and Ulku Halatci Ulusoy
Chapter 10 – Private International Law vs Public International Law: Competing complimentary intersectionality in CISG Article 79? Peter Mazzacano
Chapter 11 – Blocking Statutes: Private individuals finding themselves in interstate conflicts – Marcel Gernert
Chapter 12 – When public international law meets EU private international law: an insight on the European Court of Justice case law dealing with immunity vis-à-vis the application of the Brussels Regime – Maria Barral Martinez
Chapter 13 – Children’s rights law and private international law: What do referencing patterns reveal about their relation? – Tine Van Hof
Chapter 14 – Ringfencing data? – Perspectives on sovereignty and localisation from India – Sai Ramani Garimella and Parthiban B
Chapter 15 – Private international law and public international law – increasing convergence or divergence as usual? – Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit and Dharmita Prasad

For further details of the book please refer to the respective Springer webpage.
It is worthy of mention that the editors are in the process of planning an online “book launch” event at some point within the second quarter of 2022. Details once finalised will also be announced in this portal.