Conflictoflaws

By Biset Sena Günes, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg

Recently, on 25 October 2023, the Austrian Supreme Court (‘OGH’) [2 Ob 179/23x, BeckRS 2023, 33709] ruled on whether a jurisdiction clause included in the terms of purchase (‘ToP’) was valid when a written contract made reference to the website containing the ToP but did not provide the corresponding internet link. The Court held that such a clause does not meet the formal requirements laid down under Article 25 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation and, hence, is invalid. The judgment is undoubtedly of practical relevance for the conclusion of international commercial contracts that make reference to digitally available general terms and conditions (‘GTCs’), and it is an important follow-up to the decisions by the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) in the cases of El Majdoub (C-322/14, available here) and Tilman (C-358/21, available here).

Factual Background and Procedure

A German company and an Austrian company concluded a service agreement in which the German company (‘the service provider’) undertook to provide the engineering plans for a product to the Austrian party (‘the client’). The Austrian party sent its order to the service provider on a written form which stated (in translation): ‘we order in accordance with the terms of purchase known to you (available on our website) and expect your confirmation by email immediately’. The order specified the client’s place of business as the place of delivery. The German party subsequently signed and returned the same document, ticking its relevant parts and naming it as the ‘order confirmation’. This confirmation was also in written form. The ToP – which were not attached to the contract, but which were available on the client’s website – contained a jurisdiction clause conferring jurisdiction on the Austrian courts for the resolution of disputes arising from the parties’ contract. The clause also allowed the Austrian party to sue in another competent court and was thus asymmetric. The ToP additionally included a clause defining the place of performance for the delivery of goods or for the provision of services as the place specified by the client in the contract.

Upon a disagreement between the parties due to the allegedly defective performance of the service provider, the Austrian party brought proceedings against its contracting partner before the competent district court of Vienna, Austria, in reliance on the jurisdiction clause. The defendant successfully challenged the jurisdiction of the court by claiming that the clause did not meet the formal requirements of Article 25 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation. Upon appeal, this issue was not addressed, but the judgment was nevertheless overturned as, in the court of appeals’ view, the first instance court was competent based on the parties’ agreement as to the place of performance. According to the court, the parties’ numerous references to the place of business of the client should be understood as an agreement on the place of performance within the meaning of Article 7 of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation, even though the defendant argued that the engineering plans were actually drafted at their place of business and not that of the client. The defendant appealed against the judgment before the Austrian Supreme Court.

The Issue at Stake and the Judgment of the Court

As could be easily identified from the facts and the parties’ dispute, the main question in this case is whether the formal requirements of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation, and in particular its demand of ‘written form’, could be satisfied by a simple reference to a website where the party’s ToP – including the jurisdiction clause – could (allegedly) be retrieved, hence allowing the court to conclude that parties indeed reached an agreement as to jurisdiction.

The Court answered the first question in the negative and found the jurisdiction clause invalid. This is because the ‘written form’ requirement under Article 25(1) (a) of the Brussels I (recast) Regulation is met only if the contract expressly refers to the GTCs containing a jurisdiction clause and if it can be proved that the other party actually received them. According to the Court’s reasoning, the mere reference to the website did not make the jurisdiction clause (or the ToP, in general) accessible to the other contracting party in a reproducible manner; this is unlike the case of a written contract providing a specific link (as in Tilman) or the case of ‘click-wrapping’ (as in El Majdoub), as those are contractual constellations sufficiently establishing that the parties had access to the terms of the agreement (paras 19–20 of the judgment).

General Assessment in Light of the Case Law of the CJEU

Choice-of-court agreements are undoubtedly an important part of today’s highly digitalised business environment, and it is to be expected that they will be found in digitally available GTCs. Yet in practice their validity is often challenged by one of the parties. The Court of Justice has indeed had to deal with such issues in the past, and the present case gives us cause to briefly revisit those rulings.

In El Majdoub (commented before on blogs, here and here), the CJEU had to decide on the question of whether a ‘click-wrap’ choice-of-court clause included in the GTCs provided a durable record which was to be considered as equivalent to a ‘writing’ under the then current Article 23(2) of the Brussels Regulation. In the El Majdoub case, a sales contract was concluded electronically between the parties by means of ‘click-wrapping’, i.e. in order to conclude the agreement, the buyer had to click on a box indicating acceptance of the seller’s GTCs. The GTCs – which containing the agreement as to jurisdiction – were available in that box via a separate hyperlink that stated ‘click here to open the conditions of delivery and payment in a new window’. Although this window did not open automatically upon registration to the website and upon every individual sale, the CJEU found that such a clause provided a durable record as required by Article 23(2) of the Brussels I Regulation since it gave the buyer the possibility of printing and saving the GTCs before conclusion of the contract. This holding should be welcomed as the CJEU gave its blessing to the already existing and much-used practice of ‘click-wrapping’ in the digital business environment, and the Court thus showed its support for the use of technology in contractual practices (in line with aims previously stated in the Commission Proposal (COM(1999) 348 Final)). The Court’s conclusion is, of course, limited in the sense that it only confirms that the ‘click-wrapping’ method provides a durable record of the agreement; there is no analysis as to the requirement of a ‘consensus’ on jurisdiction between the parties in the case of digital contracts. Since the buyer had to accept the terms before the purchase, the Court took this as a consent and did not address the issue (see, similarly, van Calster and Dickinson and Ungerer, LMCLQ 2016, 15, 18–19). It should, in this regard, be observed that establishing the existence of such an agreement is the purpose of the form requirements, a fact confirmed by the case law of the Court, see, e.g. Salotti, para 7 (C-24/76, available here). Still, one should admit that questions as to the existence of consent would probably not be much of an issue in the ‘click-wrapping’ context, especially in B2B cases, as the ‘click’ concludes the agreement – unless, of course, there are other circumstances (e.g. mistake) that affect the quality of consent (see, similarly, van Calster on Tilman).

In the later case of Tilman (previously commented on PIL blogs on a couple of occasions, see the comments by Pacula, by Ho-Dac, and by Van Calster, here and here), the situation was more complex. There was a written agreement between the parties in which the GTCs – which for their part contained an agreement as to jurisdiction in favour of English courts – were referred to by provision of the link to the website where they could be accessed. In other words, there was no ‘click-wrap’ type of agreement; rather, it was a written agreement specifying the link (i.e. the internet address) of the website on which the GTCs could be retrieved. The CJEU then had to deal with the question of whether this manner of incorporating a jurisdiction clause satisfies the conditions of Article 23(1) and (2) of the Lugano II Convention, which are identical to Article 23(1) and (2) of the Brussels I Regulation. The Court answered this question in the affirmative and expanded the possibility of making reference to GTCs by inclusion of the link in written contracts because, in the Court’s view, making those terms accessible to the other party via a link before the conclusion of the contract is sufficient to satisfy formal requirements, especially when the transaction involves commercial parties who can be expected to act diligently. There is no further requirement of actual receipt of those terms. This, again, is a modern and pragmatic approach that simplifies commercial contractual practice, and it is a ruling that should be welcomed. However, it is unfortunate that the Court did not address the technical details in the facts of the case; namely, the link did not open the GTCs directly and instead opened a page on which the GTCs could be searched for and downloaded (see, Summary of the Request for Preliminary Ruling, para 14, available here). This is a point which may give rise to questions as to the proper incorporation of GTCs into a contract (in this regard, see also Finkelmeier, NJW 2023, 33, 37; Capaul, GPR 2023, 222, 225) or as to the existence of consent (on further thoughts as regards the question of consent in both of the CJEU cases, see van Calster). The facts of the case also leave room for a different interpretation in other circumstances, such as when the link refers to a homepage, the link is broken, or the website has been updated (see, in this regard, Finkelmeier, 37; Capaul, 225, and also Krümmel, IWRZ, 131, 134).

In the present case before the Austrian Supreme Court, we encounter yet a different scenario in which there is definitely room for different interpretations. Again, there is a written contract which makes reference to GTCs and which states that they are available on the client’s website. But here, the client did not supply the service provider with the hyperlink address creating accessibility to the GTCs. And the Court rightly held that the CJEU’s conclusion in Tilman should not be understood as saying that a general reference to GTCs in the contract will always be sufficient to prove they have been made available. In the Austrian Court’s understanding, the mere reference to the existence of the GTCs was not sufficient so as to constitute their proper inclusion into the contract and to prove consensus between the parties in a clear and precise manner (paras 19–20 of the judgment). One could, of course, always argue in favour of a further relaxation of the form requirements, especially when the transaction involves commercial parties who should act diligently when entering into contracts. But it is obvious that in a case in which the written contract does not even provide the necessary link, it will be a burden for the counterparty to search the website and retrieve the actual version of the referenced GTCs before entering into the contract, whereas the other party would unduly benefit from being able to fulfil her/his obligation by making a mere reference to the existence of the GTCs. Hence, it is good that the Austrian court did not further extend Tilman’s already broad interpretation.

Conclusion

Despite being an important part of cross-border commercial practice, choice-of-court agreements often become the source of an additional dispute between the parties in terms of their existence and validity. In the vast majority of cases, these disputes are complex. This is probably even more the case with the increasing use of technology in contracting. All these cases are indeed good examples of such disputes. But they can only be seen as new and different additions to the jigsaw puzzle rather than the final pieces. More cases with even more complex scenarios will likely follow, as contracting practices continue to develop along with technological advancements.

Postscript: The Place of Performance

Having found the jurisdiction clause invalid, the Court would have had to determine the place of performance of the contract as another basis for special jurisdiction under the Regulation. A decision on this latter issue was deferred, however, since the Court had already referred a similar question on the determination of the place of performance to the CJEU in a different proceeding (OGH, decision of 13 July 2023, 1 Ob 73/23a) concerning a service contract.

The Supreme Court of Canada has granted leave to appeal in Sinclair v Venezia Turismo. In light of the test for obtaining leave and the relatively low number of cases in which leave is granted, this offers at least some suggestion that the top court is interested in considering the legal issues raised in the case.

The case has factual similarities to the Brownlie litigation in England. The plaintiffs, residents of Ontario, were injured on a gondola ride in Venice, Italy. They are suing in tort in Ontario. Three Italian corporations challenged the Ontario court’s jurisdiction. At first instance the judge held Ontario had jurisdiction but on appeal the Court of Appeal for Ontario held that it did not. The key issues, at least thus far, have been whether the plaintiffs could establish a “presumptive connecting factor” (PCF) between those corporations and Ontario and if so, whether that presumption had been rebutted. Common law Canada considers that a contract made in the forum that is connected to a tort that happens elsewhere is a PCF to the forum. It is relevant here because the plaintiffs made some of the arrangements for their trip to Italy with other parties through contracts made in Ontario. In the Court of Appeal, two judges found the PCF was not established while the third found that it was. All three found that if it was established, it had been rebutted by the corporations: the connection to Ontario was insufficient.

More information is available here.  The written legal arguments by the parties for and against leave should end up posted on that site and they should be an interesting read.  As is the practice in Canada, no reasons are provided by the court for the granting of leave. The decision below is here. It contains discussion of the key precedents on jurisdiction.

Co-edited  by Rishi Gulati and Philippa Webb, the Special Issue of the King’s Law Journal, Volume 34, Issue 3 on “The Legal Accountability of Transnational Institutions: Past, Present and Future” is now out. The 9 articles in this Special Issue are authored by leading experts on the accountability of public international organisations (IOs), MNCs, as well as NGOs.

The Introduction is open access and discusses what may be learnt by comparing the legal accountability of IOs, MNCs and NGOs. In addition to the Introductory article by Rishi Gulati and Philippa Webb, the Special Issue consists of the following contributions. Assessing the Accountability Mechanism of Multilateral Development Banks Against Access to Justice: The Case of the World Bank (Edward Chukwuemeke Okeke); Holding International Organizations Accountable: Recent Developments in U.S. Immunities Law (David P. Stewart); Protecting Human Rights in UN Peacekeeping: Operationalising Due Diligence and Accountability (Nigel D. White); Nature and Scope of an International Organisation’s Due Diligence Obligations Under International Environmental Law: A Case Study of the Caribbean Development Bank (S. Nicole Liverpool Jordan); Civil Liability Under Sustainability Due Diligence Legislation: A Quiet Revolution? (Youseph Farah, Valentine Kunuji & Avidan Kent); Accountability of NGOs: The Potential of Business and Human Rights Frameworks for NGO Due Diligence (Rosana Garciandia); Arbitrating disputes with international organisations and some access to justice issues (August Reinisch); Transnational Procedural Guarantees – The Role of Domestic Courts (Dana Burchardt).

The graduate resesarch programme DynamInt (Dynamic Integration Order) of Humboldt University is inviting international PostDocs to apply for a short-term (3 to 6 months), fully paid research stay in Berlin.

The PostDoc is supposed to pursue her/his research project in the field of European Law. She/he is also expected to interact with the group of young researchers, who all work on their dissertation projects within the thematic framework of harmonization and plurality tendencies in the EU

More information are available here.

The United Nations Agenda 2030 with its 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) seems to have a blind spot for the role of private and private international law. That blind spot is beginning to be closed. A collective volume with global outlook published in 2021 addressed “the private side of transforming our world”: each of the 17 SDGs was discussed in one chapter of the book devoted to the specific relevance of private law and private international law. In 2022, the IACL-ASADIP conference in Asunción, Paraguay discussed sustainable private international law with regard to Latin America; the contributions published in 2023 in a special issue of the University of Brasilia Law Journal – Direito.UnB., V.7., N.3 (2023).

In this occasion the focus is on Asia. The Chinese Journal of Transnational Law invites submissions for its Vol. 2 Issue 2, to be published in 2025, engaging critically with the functions, methodologies and techniques of private international law in relation to sustainability from an Asian perspective, as well as in relation to the actual and potential contributions of private international law to the SDGs in Asia.

Contributions should focus on Asian perspectives, either addressing a specific global challenge through the lens of the relevant normative framework of a particular country, sub-region, or community/ies in Asia; or ‘glocalising’ the challenge, analysing specific issues affecting concrete contexts in the region in relation to the global objectives included in the UN 2030 Agenda.

Topics could include, but are not limited to:

• Relationships between the international and the domestic, or/and the public and the private in the pursue of the UN Agenda 2030 in Asia
• Sustainability in global supply/value chains and private international law in Asia
• Intra-regional (South-South) migration in Asia and private international law (focus on specific kinds of migration, such as labour migration, climate change migration, forced displacement, refugees, etc)
• Clean energy in Asia and private international law
• Decent work (and economic growth) in Asia, and of Asian workers beyond Asia, and private international law
• Sustainable consumption and production in Asia and private international law (focus on a specific sector, such as apparel, food, agricultural products, etc)
• Gender equality in Asia and private international law
• Sustainable Asian cities and communities and private international law
• Establishment and proof of personal identity in Asia; portability across borders of identity documents in Asia and beyond
• (Non-) recognition of foreign child marriages and forced marriages in and from Asia
• Availability and sustainable management of water (and sanitation) in Asia and the role of private international law
• Private international law and cross-border environmental damage/ adverse effects of climate change/ loss of biodiversity from an Asian perspective.

Note: The issue of transnational access to justice in relation to sustainable development has been considered extensively, including from an Asian perspective, so we suggest interested contributors to refrain from submitting contributions based exclusively on SDG 16.

An abstract of 500-800 words should be submitted by 20 Feburary 2024 to PIL.sustainability.CJTL@ed.ac.uk and CJTL.Editor@whu.edu.cn (please send the abstract to both email addresses). Please include the contributor’s last name in the email title. Selected contributors will be invited to submit a draft paper by 1 October 2024 in advance of a hybrid conference at Wuhan University in November 2024 . The submission of the full article through the journal’s homepage: https://journals.sagepub.com/home/ctl is required by 1 March 2025. Accepted articles will be published online first as advanced articles. Contributors may choose between: Research articles (up to 11,000 words inclusive of footnotes) or short articles (up to 6,000 words inclusive of footnotes). The special issue will be published in September 2025.

Those interested may contact the guest editors Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Ralf Michaels and Hans van Loon at PIL.sustainability.CJTL@ed.ac.uk.

Written by Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), member of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.  

Introduction

In the final weeks leading up to Christmas in 2023, the District Court of Amsterdam referred a set of questions to the CJEU (DC Amsterdam, 20 December 2023, ECLI:NL:RBAMS:2023:8330; in Dutch). These questions, if comprehensively addressed, have the potential to bring clarity to longstanding debates regarding jurisdictional conflicts in collective actions. Despite being rooted in competition law with its unique intricacies, the issues surrounding the determination of online damage locations hold the promise of illuminating pertinent questions. Moreover, the forthcoming judgment is expected to provide insights into the centralization of jurisdiction in collective actions within a specific Member State, an aspect currently unclear. Recalling our previous discussion on the Dutch class action under the WAMCA in this blog, it is crucial to emphasize that, under the WAMCA, only one representative action can be allowed to proceed for the same event. In instances where multiple representative foundations seek to bring proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement up to a certain point during the proceedings, the court will appoint an exclusive representative. This procedural detail adds an additional layer of complexity to the dynamics of collective actions under the WAMCA.

Following a brief overview of the case against Apple, we will delve into the rationale behind the court’s decision to refer the questions.

The claim against Apple

The claim revolves around Apple’s alleged anticompetitive behavior in the market for the distribution of apps and in-app products on iOS devices, such as iPhones, iPads, and iPod Touch. The foundations argue that Apple holds a monopoly in this market, as users are dependent on the App Store for downloading and using apps.

According to the foundations, Apple’s anticompetitive actions include controlling which apps are included in the App Store and imposing conditions for their inclusion. Furthermore, Apple is accused of having a monopoly on payment processing services for apps and digital in-app products, with the App Store payment system being the sole method for transactions.

The foundations argue that Apple charges an excessive commission of 30% for paid apps and digital in-app products, creating an unfair advantage and disrupting competition. They assert that Apple’s dominant position in the market and its behavior constitute an abuse of power. Users are said to be harmed by being forced to use the App Store and pay high commissions, leading to the claim that Apple has acted unlawfully. The legal bases of the claim are therefore abuse of economic dominance in the market (Article 102 TFEU) and prohibited vertical price fixing (Article 101 TFEU).

The jurisdictional conundrum

Apple Ireland functions as the subsidiary tasked with representing app suppliers within the EU. The international nature of the dispute stems from the users purportedly affected being located in the Netherlands, while the case is lodged against the subsidiary established in Ireland. The District Court of Amsterdam has opted to scrutinize the jurisdiction of Dutch courts under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation. This provision grants jurisdiction to the courts of the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur, encompassing both prongs of the Bier paradigm. However, Apple contends that, within the Netherlands, the court would only possess jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation with regard to users residing specifically in Amsterdam.

In the court’s view, the ascertainment of the Handlungsort should pertain only to allegations under Article 102 TFEU. In relation to Article 101 TFEU, the Netherlands was not considered the Handlungsort. This is due to the necessity of identifying a specific incident causing harm to ascertain the Handlungsort, and the absence of concrete facts renders it challenging to pinpoint such an event.

The court’s jurisdictional analysis commences with a reference to Case C?27/17 flyLAL-Lithuanian Airlines (ECLI:EU:C:2018:533), in which the CJEU established that the location of the harmful event in cases involving the abuse of a dominant position under Article 102 TFEU is closely linked to the actual implementation of such abuse. In the present case, the court observes that Apple’s actions, conducted through the Dutch storefront of the App Store tailored for the Dutch market, involve facilitating app and in-app product purchases. Acting as the exclusive distributor for third-party apps, Apple Ireland exerts control over the offered content.

Applying the criteria from flyLAL, the court concludes that the Handlungsort is situated in the Netherlands. However, the court agreed that the specific court within the Netherlands responsible for adjudicating the matter remains unspecified.

The court initiated its analysis of the Erfolgsort based on the established premise in CJEU case law which posits that there is no distinction between individual and collective actions when determining the location of the damage. The court clarified that the concept of the place where the damage occurs does not encompass any location where the consequences of the event may be felt; rather, only the damage directly resulting from the committed harm should be considered. Moreover, the court emphasized that when determining the Erfolgsort, there is no distinction based on whether the legal basis for the accusation of anticompetitive practices is grounded in Article 101 or Article 102 TFEU.

The court reiterated that the App Store with Dutch storefront is a targeted online sales platform for the Dutch market. Functioning as an exclusive distributor, Apple Ireland handles third-party apps and in-app products, contributing to an alleged influence of anticompetitive behavior in the Dutch market. It’s acknowledged that the majority of users making purchases reside in the Netherlands, paying through Dutch bank accounts, thus placing the Erfolgsort within the Netherlands for this user group. Nevertheless, the court reiterated that the particular court within the Netherlands tasked with adjudicating this case remains unspecified.

The questions referred

Despite the court having its perspective on establishing jurisdiction under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation, it opted to seek clarification from the CJEU for the following reasons.

First, the court expresses reservations regarding the complete applicability of the flyLAL precedent to the current case. It emphasizes that the flyLAL case involved a precise location where the damage could be pinpointed. In contrast, the present case involves anticompetitive practices unfolding through an online platform accessible simultaneously in every location within a particular Member State and globally. The court is uncertain whether the nature of this online distribution makes a significant difference in this context, especially when considering whether the case involves a collective action.

Second, as mentioned above, the WAMCA stipulates that only a single representative action can be allowed to proceed for a given event. In situations where multiple representative foundations aim to commence legal proceedings for the same event without reaching a settlement by a specific stage in the proceedings, the court will designate an exclusive representative. In addition to that, Article 220 Dutch Code of Civil Procedure offers the opportunity to consolidate cases awaiting resolution before judges in various districts and involving identical subject matter and parties, allowing for a unified hearing of these cases.

Nevertheless, the court has reservations about the compatibility of relocating from the Erfolgsort within a Member State under the consolidation of proceedings, as Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation impacts the establishment of jurisdiction within that Member State. In questioning whether such relocation would run contrary to EU law, the court highlights the Brussels I-bis Regulation’s overarching objective of preventing parallel proceedings. This triggers a skepticism towards the interpretation that each District Court within the Netherlands would have competence to adjudicate a collective action pertaining to users situated in the specific Erfolgsort within their jurisdiction.

However, the court finds it necessary to refer these questions to the CJEU, considering that, in its assessment, the CJEU’s rationale in Case C?30/20 Volvo (ECLI:EU:C:2021:604) is not easily transposable to the current case. In Volvo, the CJEU permitted the concentration of proceedings in antitrust matters within a specialized court. This is not applicable here, as the consolidation of proceedings under the described framework arises from the efficiency in conducting the proceedings, not from specialization.

These are, in a nutshell, the reasons why the District Court of Amsterdam decided to refer the following questions to the CJEU:

 Question 1

1. What should be considered as the place of the damaging action in a case like this, where the alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU has been implemented in a Member State through sales via an online platform managed by Apple that is aimed at the entire Member State, with Apple Ireland acting as the exclusive distributor and as the developer’s commission agent and deducting commission on the purchase price, within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis? Is it important that the online platform is in principle accessible worldwide?
2. Does it matter that in this case it concerns claims that have been instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code by a legal entity whose purpose is to represent the collective interests of multiple users who have their seat in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: districts) within a Member State under its own right?
3. If on the basis of question 1a (and/or 1b) not only one but several internally competent judges in the relevant Member State are designated, does Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis then oppose the application of national (procedural) law that allows referral to one court within that Member State?

 Question 2

1. Can in a case like this, where the alleged damage has occurred as a result of purchases of apps and digital in-app products via an online platform managed by Apple (the App Store) where Apple Ireland acts as the exclusive distributor and commission agent of the developers and deducts commission on the purchase price (and where both alleged abuse of a dominant position within the meaning of Article 102 TFEU has taken place and an alleged infringement of the cartel prohibition within the meaning of Article 101 TFEU), and where the place where these purchases have taken place cannot be determined, only the seat of the user serve as a reference point for the place where the damage has occurred within the meaning of Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis? Or are there other points of connection in this situation to designate a competent judge?
2. Does it matter that in this case it concerns claims that have been instituted on the basis of Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code by a legal entity whose purpose is to represent the collective interests of multiple users who have their seat in different jurisdictions (in the Netherlands: districts) within a Member State under its own right?
3. If on the basis of question 2a (and/or 2b) an internally competent judge in the relevant Member State is designated who is only competent for the claims on behalf of a part of the users in that Member State, while for the claims on behalf of another part of the users other judges in the same Member State are competent, does Article 7, point 2, Brussels I bis then oppose the application of national (procedural) law that allows referral to one court within that Member State?

 [Translation from Dutch by the author, with support of ChatGPT]

Discussion

The CJEU possesses case law that could be construed in a manner conducive to allowing the case to proceed in the Netherlands. Notably, Case C?251/20 Gtflix Tv (ECLI:EU:C:2021:1036) appears to be most closely aligned with this possibility, wherein the eDate rule was applied to a case involving French competition law, albeit the CJEU did not explicitly address this aspect (though AG Hogan did). Viewed from this angle, the Netherlands could be deemed the centre of interests for the affected users, making it a potential Erfolgsort.

Regarding the distinction between individual and collective proceedings, the CJEU, in Cases C-352/13 CDC (ECLI:EU:C:2015:335) and C-709/19 VEB v. BP (ECLI:EU:C:2021:377), declined to differentiate for the purpose of determining the locus of damage. We find no compelling reason for the CJEU to deviate from this precedent in the current case.

The truly intricate question centers on the feasibility of consolidating proceedings in a single court. In Case C-381/14 Sales Sinués (ECLI:EU:C:2016:252), the CJEU established that national law must not hinder consumers from pursuing individual claims under the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD – 93/13) by employing rules on the suspension of proceedings during the pendency of parallel collective actions. However, it is unclear whether this rationale can be extrapolated to parallel concurrent collective actions.

Conclusion

This referral arrives at a good time, coinciding with the recent coming into force of the Representative Actions Directive (RAD – 2020/1828) last summer. Seeking clarification on the feasibility of initiating collective actions within the jurisdictions of affected users for damages incurred in the online sphere holds significant added value. Notably, the inclusion of both the Digital Services Act and the Digital Markets Act within the purview of the RAD amplifies the pertinence of these questions.

Moreover, this case may offer insights into potential avenues for collective actions grounded in the GDPR. Such actions, permitted to proceed under Article 7(2) Brussels I-bis Regulation, as exemplified in our earlier analysis of the TikTok case in Amsterdam, share a parallel rationale. The convergence of these legal frameworks could yield valuable precedents and solutions in navigating the complex landscape of online damages and collective redress.

Marco Buzzoni, Doctoral Researcher at the Luxembourg Centre for European Law (LCEL) and PhD candidate at the Sorbonne Law School, offers a critical analysis of some recent rulings by the Court of Justice of the European Union in matters of data protection.

In a series of three preliminary rulings issued on 14th December and 21st December 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union (‘CJEU’) was called upon again to rule on the interpretation of Article 82 of the General Data Protection Regulation (‘GDPR’). While these rulings provide some welcome clarifications regarding the civil liability of data controllers, their slightly inconsistent reasoning will most likely raise difficulties in future cases, especially those involving cross-border processing of personal data.

On the one hand, the judgments handed down in Cases C-456/22, Gemeinde Ummendorf, and C-340/21, Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite, explicitly held that three elements are sufficient to establish liability under Article 82 GDPR. In so doing, the Court built upon its previous case law by confirming that the right to compensation only requires proof of an infringement of the Regulation, some material or non-material damage, and a causal link between the two. On the other hand, however, the Court seemingly swayed away from this analysis in Case C-667/21, Krankenversicherung Nordrhein, by holding that a data controller can avoid liability if they prove that the damage occurred through no fault of their own.

In reaching this conclusion, the Court reasoned that imposing a strict liability regime upon data controllers would be incompatible with the goal of fostering legal certainty laid out in Recital 7 GDPR. By introducing a subjective element that finds no mention in the Regulation, the Court’s latest decision is nonetheless likely to raise difficulties in cross-border cases by introducing some degree of unpredictability with respect to the law applicable to data controllers’ duty of care. In time, this approach might lead to a departure from the autonomous and uniform reading of Article 82 that seemed to have prevailed in earlier cases.

The Court’s Rejection of Strict Liability for Data Controllers

According to the conceptual framework laid out by the CJEU in its own case law, compensation under Article 82 GDPR is subject to three cumulative conditions. These include an infringement of the Regulation, the presence of some material or non-material damage, and a causal link between the two (see Case C-300/21, UI v Österreichische Post AG, para 32). In the cases decided in December 2023, the Court was asked to delve deeper into each of these elements and offer some additional guidance on how data protection litigation should play out before national courts.

In case C-456/22, the CJEU was presented with a claim for compensation for non-material damage filed by an individual against a local government body. The plaintiff alleged that their data protection rights had been breached when the defendant intentionally published documents on the internet that displayed their unredacted full name and address without their consent. Noting that this information was only accessible on the local government’s website for a short time, the referring court asked the CJEU to clarify whether, in addition to the data subject’s mere short-term loss of control over their personal data, the concept of ‘non-material damage’ referred to in Article 82(1) of the GDPR required a significant disadvantage and an objectively comprehensible impairment of personal interests in order to qualify for compensation. Rather unsurprisingly, the Court (proceeding to judgment without an Opinion) answered this question in the negative and held that, while Article 82(1) GDPR requires proof of actual damage, it also precludes any national legislation or practice that would subject it to a “de minimis threshold” for compensation purposes.

In doing so, the Court followed the road map outlined in UI v Österreichische Post AG, which had already held that the concept of damage should receive an autonomous and uniform definition under the GDPR (Case C-456/22, para 15, quoting Case C-300/21, paras 30 and 44) and should not be limited to harm reaching a certain degree of seriousness. Arguably, however, the Court also went beyond its previous decision by stating that the presence of an infringement, material or non-material damage, and a link between the two were not only “cumulative” or “necessary” but also “sufficient” conditions for the application of Article 82(1) (Case C-456/22, para 14). Remarkably, the Court did not mention any other condition that could have excluded or limited the data subject’s right to compensation. Taken literally, this decision could thus have been understood as an implicit endorsement of a strict liability regime under the GDPR.

This impression was further strengthened by the judgment handed down in Case C-340/21, where the Court was asked to weigh in on the extent of a data controller’s liability in case of unauthorised access to and disclosure of personal data due to a “hacking attack”. In particular, one of the questions referred to the CJEU touched upon whether the data controller could be exempted from civil liability in the event of a personal data breach by a third party. Contrary to the Opinion delivered by AG Pitruzzella, who argued that the data controller might be exonerated by providing evidence that the damage occurred without negligence on their part (see Opinion, paras 62-66), the CJEU ignored once more the question of the data controller’s fault and rather ruled that the latter should establish “that there [was] no causal link between its possible breach of the data protection obligation and the damage suffered by the natural person” (Case C-340/21, para 72).

A few days later, however, the CJEU explicitly endorsed AG Pitruzzella’s reading of Article 82 GDPR in Case C-667/21. In a subtle yet significant shift from its previous reasoning, the Court there held that the liability of the data controller is subject to the existence of fault on their part, which is presumed unless the data controller can prove that they are in no way responsible for the event that caused the damage (Case C-667/21, holding). To reach this conclusion, The Court relied on certain linguistic discrepancies in Article 82 of the GDPR and held, contrary to the Opinion by AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona, that a contextual and teleological interpretation of the Regulation supported a liability regime based on presumed fault rather than a strict liability rule (Case C-667/21, paras 95-100). Formulated in very general terms, the holding in Case C-667/21 thus suggests that a controller could be released from liability not only if they prove that their conduct played no part in the causal chain leading to the damage but also — alternatively — that the breach of the data subject’s rights did not result from an intentional or negligent act on their part.

Lingering Issues Surrounding the Right to Compensation in Cross-Border Settings

According to the CJEU, only a liability regime based on a rebuttable presumption of fault is capable of guaranteeing a sufficient degree of legal certainty and a proper balance between the parties’ interests. Ironically, however, the Court’s approach in Case C-340/21 raises some significant methodological and procedural questions which might lead to unpredictable results and end up upsetting the parties’ expectations about their respective rights and obligations, especially in cases involving cross-border processing of personal data.

From a methodological perspective, the CJEU’s latest ruling does not fit squarely within the uniform reading of the GDPR that the Court had previously adopted with respect to the interpretation of Article 82 GDPR. In the earlier cases, in fact, the CJEU had consistently held that the civil liability requirements laid out in the Regulation, such as the notion of damage or the presence of an actual infringement of data protection laws, should be appreciated autonomously and without any reference to national law (on the latter, see in particular Case C-340/21, para 23). On the other hand, however, the Court has also made clear that if the GDPR remains silent on a specific issue, Member States should remain free to set their own rules, so long that they do not conflict with the principles of equivalence and effectiveness of EU law (on this point, see eg Case C-340/21, para 59).

Against this backdrop, the Court’s conclusion that the civil liability regime set up by the legislature implicitly includes the presence of some fault on the defendant’s part begs the question of whether this requirement should also receive a uniform interpretation throughout the European Union. In favour of this interpretation, one could argue that this condition should be subject to the same methodological approach applicable to the other substantive requirements laid out in Article 82 GDPR. Against this position, it could nonetheless be pointed out that in the absence of explicit indications in this Article, the defendant’s fault should be assessed by reference to national law unless another specific provision of the Regulation (such as Articles 24 or 32 of the GDPR) specifies the degree of care required of the data controller or processor. In the context of cross-border cases, the latter interpretation would thus allow each Member State to determine, based on their own conflict-of-laws rules, the law applicable to the defendant’s duty of care in cases of violations of data protection laws. If generalised, this approach might in time lead to considerable fragmentation across the Member States.

In addition to these methodological difficulties, the Court’s decision in Case C-340/21 also raises some doubts from a procedural point of view. In holding that the data controllers’ liability is subject to the existence of fault on their part, the CJEU calls into question the possible interaction between national court proceedings aimed at establishing civil liability under Article 82 GDPR and administrative decisions adopted by data protection authorities. With respect to the latter, the CJEU had in fact ruled in Case C-683/21, Nacionalinis visuomenés sveikatos centras, that Article 83 GDPR must be interpreted so that an administrative fine may be imposed pursuant to that provision “only where it is established that the controller has intentionally or negligently committed an infringement referred to in paragraphs 4 to 6 of that article” (Case C-683/21, holding). In other words, national supervisory authorities are also called upon to assess the existence of fault on the part of the data controller or processor before issuing fines for the violation of data protection laws.

At first glance, the CJEU’s decision in Case C-340/21 fosters some convergence between the private and public remedies set out in the GDPR. In reality, however, this interpretation might potentially create more hurdles than it solves. Indeed, future litigants will likely wonder what deference, if any, should be given to a supervisory authority’s determinations under Article 83 GDPR within the context of parallel court proceedings unfolding under Article 82. In a similar context, the Court has already held that the administrative remedies provided for in Article 77(1) and Article 78(1) GDPR may be exercised independently and concurrently with the right to an effective judicial remedy enshrined in Article 79 GDPR, provided that national procedural rules are able to ensure the effective, consistent and homogeneous application of the rights guaranteed by the Regulation (see Case C-132/21, Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság v BE). Should the same principles apply to actions brought under Article 82 GDPR? If so, should the same rule also extend to conflicts between national court proceedings and decisions issued by foreign supervisory authorities (and vice-versa), even though each of them might have a different understanding of the degree of protection afforded by the Regulation?

Despite the CJEU’s laudable attempt to strike a balance between the interests of personal data controllers and those of the individuals whose data is processed, it is not certain that the Court has fully assessed all the consequences of its decision. Ultimately, in fact, the choice to reject a strict liability rule could lead not only to unequal protection of individual rights within the EU but also to major uncertainties for economic operators regarding the extent of their own liability under the GDPR.

The Croatian Academy of Science and Art organises the roundtable titled “Private international law and global trends“, which will be held on Monday, 22 January 2024, at 11 h, in the premises of the Faculty of Law in Zagreb in Cirilometodska street, 4 (due to ongoing renovation of the Academy’s building which suffered damage in the earthquake of 2020, as visible in the photo when expanded). Attendance is open to all, but your intention to join should be communicated to Ms. Muhek at zmuhek@hazu.hr.

The programme includes the following topics:
Prof. Dr. Ines Medic, University of Split, Faculty of Law
Challenges of globalization of private international law for national judiciary

Prof. Dr. Ivana Kunda, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
Have frontier digital technologies surpassed the boundaries of private international law?

Prof. Dr. Mirela Zupan, Assoc. Prof. Dr. Paula Poretti, Jura Golub, University of J. J. Strossmayer in Osijek, Faculty of Law
Foreign public documents in the digital age

Asst. Prof. Dr. Danijela Vrbljanac, University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law
Breach of personal data in private international law

Asst. Prof. Dr. Tena Hosko, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
Protection of workers in private international law

Assoc. Prof. Dr. Dora Zgrabljic Rotar, University of Zagreb, Faculty of Law
The effect of the Hague Judgments Convention of 2019 on the recognition and enforcement of foreign court decisions in the Republic of Croatia

The proceeds from the conference will be edited by Prof. Dr. Mirela Zupan and published in a book within the series Modernisation of Law whose general editor is Academy Member Prof. Dr. Jakša Barbic.

On Tuesday, February 6, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 41st monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Heinz-Peter Mansel (Universität zu Köln) will speak, in German, about

The presentation will be followed by an open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

The Max Planck Institute for Social Anthropology in Halle (Saale), Germany, is advertising two PhD positions in Private Law within the context of a research project on “Cultural Diversity in
Private Law” lead by Dr Mareike Schmidt.

More information can be found here.

This post is part of a series regarding Colonialism and the general structure of (German) Private International Law, based on a presentation I gave in spring 2023. See the introduction here.

As mentioned in the introduction, this series does not intent to automatically pass judgment on a norm or method influenced by colonialism as inherently negative. Instead, the aim is to reveal these influences and to initiate a first engagement with and awareness of this topic and to stimulate a discussion and reflection.

The first post (after the introduction) dealt with classic PIL and colonialism. This second considered structures and values inherent in German or European law, implicitly resonating within the PIL and, thus, expanding those values to people and cases from other parts of the world.  The third category discusses an imagined hierarchy between the Global North and Global South that is sometimes inherent in private international law thinking. The fourth and for the moment last (but not least) category deals with PIL rules that allow or at least contribute to the exploitation of a power asymmetry between parties from the Global North and the Global South. For example, this power and negotiation asymmetry, in conjunction with generous rules on party autonomy, can lead to arbitration and choice of law clauses being (ab)used to effectively undermine rights of land use under traditional tribal law.

After the first post, in the comment section a discussion evolved regarding the (non-)application of tribal law. One question asked for an example. This post can also (hopefully) serve as such an example.

1. Party Autonomy in German and EU PIL

One value inherent to the German and EU legal systems is that of private and party autonomy. It reflects and expresses the individualism of the Enlightenment and a neo-liberal social order and is recognised today, at least in part, as one of the “universal values” of PIL. However, the choice of law and, thus, party autonomy as a core connecting factor or method of PIL can lead to the exploitation of negotiation asymmetries in the relationship between companies in the Global North and states or companies in the Global South, particularly to the detriment of the population in the Global South, by avoiding state control and socially protective regulations.

2. “Land Grabbing” as an Example

“Land grabbing” refers to, among other things, the procedure used by foreign investors to acquire ownership to or rights to exploit territories in former colonies. The contract is concluded with the landowner, often the state, and includes an arbitration and choice of law clause, often within the framework of bilateral investment protection agreements. The use of the land can conflict with the collective, traditional use by certain local groups, which is based on customary and tribal law. Such rights of land use were often only fought for politically after the former colony gained independence, while the original colonial legal system overrode indigenous rights of use (see also former posts here and see the  discussion in the comment section of the post). These land use rights of indigenous groups often stem from public law and are conceived as protection rights of the indigenous population, who are thus authorised to live on their traditional land.

The arbitration agreement and the choice of law clause make it possible for legal disputes to be settled before a private arbitration tribunal. The tribes concerned, as they are not part of the treaty on the land and its use, can only become parties to the legal dispute with difficulty. Furthermore, they may not have knowledge of the treaty and the arbitration clause or the possibility to start a proceeding at the tribunal. In addition, a law applicable to the contract and its consequences may be chosen that does not recognise the right of land use based on tribal law. If the arbitrator, not knowing about the not applicable tribal law or the existence of the tribe, makes a decision based on the chosen law, the decision can subsequently become final and enforceable. This may force the tribes using the land having to vacate it as property disturbers without being able to take legal action against it.

3. Party Autonomy and Colonialism

This possibility of “land grabbing” is made possible by the fact that a state – often a former colony – has a high interest in attracting foreign investment. She, therefore, tries to organise its own legal system, and therefore also her conflict of laws, in an investment-friendly manner and accommodate the investor in the contract. The generous granting of party autonomy and individual negotiating power plays a key role here. A domino effect can be observed in former colonies, where a legal system follows that of neighbouring states once they have attracted foreign investment in order to be able to conclude corresponding agreements. The endeavours of states to introduce a liberal economy form, which is reflected in party autonomy in PIL, can therefore also express a structural hierarchy and form of neo-colonialism. It also indirectly revives the original behaviour of the colonial rulers towards the indigenous peoples with the support of the central state (see former post).

4. Assessment of “Land Grabbing”

If the aforementioned power asymmetry is not counter weighted, arbitration and choice of law clauses can lead to an avoidance of unwanted laws, such as those granting traditional land use rights to local tribes. From a German domestic perspective, the problem arises that the enforcement of (one’s own) local law is a matter for the foreign state. A case where local law will be addressed before German courts will be scarce, esp. in the case of an arbitration proceeding. German courts only come into contact with the legal dispute if an arbitration proceeding has already resulted in a legally binding award and this award is now to be enforced in Germany. In my opinion, this case has to be handled in the same procedure proposed in a former post for the integration of local, non-applicable law. If foreign tribal law is mandatory in the state in question, for example, because there is an obligation under international and domestic law, the arbitral tribunal should be presumed to also observe this obligation as an internationally mandatory norm, irrespective of which lex causae applies. When enforcing the arbitral award domestically, the declaration of enforceability should be prohibited on the grounds of a violation of public policy if the arbitral tribunal has not complied with this obligation.

Furthermore, the use of party autonomy could be more strictly controlled and restrictively authorised when special domestic values and interests of third parties are at stake, as can be the case in particular with the use of land. The lex rei sitae might be more appropriate without allowing for a choice of law.

Finally, restrictions on party autonomy in cases in which negotiation asymmetries are assumed are not unknown to German and European PIL. So, ideas from these rules could be taken up and consideration could be given to which negotiation asymmetries could arise in relation to non-European states. For example, certain types of contract that are particularly typical of power asymmetries could be provided with special protection mechanisms similar to consumer contracts under Art. 6 Rome I Regulation. But that is an international problem that should be discussed on the international level. Therefore, the international community could work towards an international consensus in arbitration proceedings that, for example, property law issues are subject to the lex rei sitae and are not open to a choice of law. Similarly, there could be a discussion whether safeguards should ensure that no choice of law can be made to the detriment of third parties and that, where applicable, participation rights must be examined in arbitration proceedings. Many legal systems already provide those saveguards, so this would not come as a huge novelty.

However, it would also be paternalistic and neo-colonialist if such considerations originated in the Global North without involving the countries to which they refer. It would therefore be desirable to have a stronger and more enhanced dialogue with countries from the Global South that also allows representatives of the local population and local communities to have their say, so that these interests and possibilities for exploiting negotiation asymmetries can be better taken into account.

5. Epilogue

This series has tried to start a debate about Colonialism and Private International Law from the point of view of German PIL. Posts from other jurisdictions might follow. It is a very complex topic and this series only scratched on its surface. As writen in the introduction, I welcome any comments, experiences and ideas from other countries and particularly from countries that are former colonies.

The University of Stirling is bringing together academics, practitioners and other stakeholders to present research examining the role of Scots law in the international legal landscape. It is hoped this will promote the ways in which Scots law can offer solutions to global legal challenges but also to offer critiques of the way in which Scots law can or must evolve to preserve and promote its value.

With many Law Schools diversifying their programme offerings beyond Scots law it is a critical time to explore the interactions between Scots law and other jurisdictions. It is also necessary to consider the relationships between the curriculum within Law Schools and the needs of legal practice.

Seminars will be delivered in hybrid format to enable busy stakeholders to engage with these discussions.

Please register for each event in the series individually here, and find out more about a seminar by emailing internationalisationofscotslaw@stir.ac.uk.

This seminar series has been generously funded by the Clark Foundation for Legal Education.

On 12 January 2024, the United Kingdom has signed the 2019 Judgments Convention (Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters), as announced in the press release of the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

This a milestone for private international law within the coming about of the worldwide framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments and potentially a valuable instrument in the post-Brexit legal landscape.

This post is part of a series regarding Colonialism and the general structure of (German) Private International Law, based on a presentation I gave in spring 2023. See the introduction here.

As mentioned in the introduction, this series does not intent to automatically pass judgment on a norm or method influenced by colonialism as inherently negative. Instead, the aim is to reveal these influences and to initiate a first engagement with and awareness of this topic and to stimulate a discussion and reflection.

The first post (after the introduction) dealt with classic PIL and colonialism and already sparked a vivid discussion in the comments section. This second considered structures and values inherent in German or European law, implicitly resonating within the PIL and, thus, expanding those values to people and cases from other parts of the world.  The third category discusses an imagined hierarchy between the Global North and Global South that is sometimes inherent in private international law thinking, for instances where courts or legislators abstractly or paternalistically apply the public policy to “protect” individuals from foreign legal norms. This is especially evident in areas like underage marriages and unilateral divorce practices found inter alia in Islamic law.

1. The public policy exception – abstract or concrete control?

The public policy exception is intended to prevent the application of foreign law by way of exception if the result of this application of law conflicts with fundamental domestic values. Such control is necessary for a legal system that is open to the application of foreign law and, in particular, foreign law of a completely different character. German law is typically very restrictive in its approach: The public policy control refers to a concrete control of the results of applying the provisions in question. In addition, the violation of fundamental domestic values must be obvious and there must be a sufficient domestic connection. In other countries, the approach is less restrictive. In particular, there are also courts that do not look at the result of the application of the law, but carry out an abstract review, i.e. assess the foreign legal system in the abstract. For a comparison of some EU Member States see this article.

2. Explicit paternalistic rules

Furthermore, there are some rules that exercise an abstract control of foreign law. Article 10 of the Rome III Regulation contains a provision that analyses foreign divorce law in the abstract to determine whether it contains gender inequality. According to this (prevailing, see e.g. conclusions of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe) interpretation, it is irrelevant whether the result of the application of the law actually leads to unequal treatment. This abstract assessment assumes – even more so than a review of the result – an over-under-ordering relationship between domestic and foreign law, as the former can assess the latter as “good” or “bad”.

Even beyond the ordre public control, there has recently been a tendency towards “paternalistic rules”, particularly triggered by the migration movements of the last decade. The legislator seems to assume that the persons concerned must be protected from the application of “their” foreign law, even if they may wish its application. In particular, the “Act to Combat Child Marriage” which was only partially deemed unconstitutional by the Federal Constitutional Court (see official press release and blog post), is one such example: the legislator considered the simple, restrictive ordre public provision to be insufficient. Therefore, it created additional, abstract regulations that block the application of foreign, “bad” law.

3. Assessment

In the described cases as a conceptual hierarchy can be identified: The impression arises that foreign legal systems, particularly from the “Global South”, are categorised in the abstract as “worse” than the German/EU legal system and that persons affected by it must be protected from it (“paternalistic norms”). As far as I can see there is a high consensus in the vast majority of German literature (but there are other voices) and also the majority of case law that the abstract ordre public approach should be rejected and that the aforementioned norms, i.e. in particular Art. 13 III EGBGB (against underage marriages) and Art. 10 Rome III-VO (different access to a divorce based on gender), should ideally be abolished. It would be desirable for the legislator to take greater account of the literature in this regard.

This interesting case comment has been kindly provided to the blog by Nicolás Zambrana-Tévar , LLM, PhD, KIMEP University

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit has found in favor of Spain as defendant in a property case spanning several decades. A panel of three judges has unanimously ruled that, applying California conflict of law rules, Spain has a stronger interest than the claimants in the application of its own domestic law, including its own rules on prescriptive acquisition of property and the statute of limitations, thus confirming the ownership of a stolen painting, now owned by a Spanish museum.

1. Background information

In 1939, Lilly Cassirer traded a Pissarro painting to the Nazis in exchange for her family´s safe passage out of Germany. In 1954, a tribunal set up by the Allied forces established that the Cassirer family were the rightful owners of the painting. However, believing that the painting had been lost during the war, the family accepted 13,000 US dollars in compensation from the German government, which would be the equivalent of 250,000 US dollars today.
After the painting was looted, it found its way into the United States and, in 1976, Baron Hans Heinrich Thyssen-Bornemisza bought it from the Hahn Gallery of New York, where the painting was publicly in display, allegedly ignoring its origin. The Museum Thyssen-Bornemisza purchased the painting from the Baron in 1993. Claude Cassirer – the grandson of Lilly Cassirer – found out that the painting was being exhibited in Madrid and commenced proceedings under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) in 2005. The Museum is the actual defendant in the suit but it is considered an instrumentality of the Kingdom of Spain.

2. Court decisions

In 2019, a US District Judge for the Central District of California, applying Spanish law, found that court filings did not demonstrate a “willful blindness” on the part of the Museum, when it added the painting to its collection. Moreover, the judge found that it could not force Spain or the Museum to comply with the “moral commitments” of international agreements concerning the return of works of art looted by the Nazis.
In 2020, the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit found in favor of Spain, again applying Spanish law. The court ruled that, regardless of the test applied by the district judge to determine the degree of care employed by the purchaser to determine the origin of the painting, both the Baron in 1976 and the Museum in 1993, lacked actual knowledge of the theft. It is important to note that both the district judge and the court of appeals determined the application of Spanish law because they were applying federal choice of law rules.
In 2022, the US Supreme Court ruled that this case did not involve any substantive federal law issues because it basically dealt with property law. Therefore, the choice of law rules that the district judge and the court of appeals should have applied were the conflict rules of the forum state, i.e. the conflict rules of California. The Supreme Court argued that Spanish law “made everything depend on whether, at the time of acquisition, the Foundation knew the painting was stolen”. On the other hand, the claimants argued that California conflict rules led to the application of California property law, in accordance with which “even a good-faith purchaser of stolen property cannot prevail against the rightful pre-theft owner.” Basically, the Supreme Court said that in an FSIA case, the foreign state defendant has to be treated like a private defendant and that if the Museum had been a purely private entity, it would have had to return the painting. The case was returned to the Court of Appeals.

3. Conflict-of-law analysis

On 9 January 2024, the US Court of Appeals ruled that, even applying California choice of law rules, Spanish law was applicable. The court came to this conclusion applying the “governmental interest approach”. In accordance with this approach, the court first had to ascertain that the two laws in conflict – Spain and California law – were different. They were because the Spanish law provision that the defendant was relying on was article 1955 of the Spanish Civil Code, which provides that “Ownership of movable goods prescribes by three years of uninterrupted bona fide possession. Ownership of movable goods also prescribes by six years of uninterrupted possession, without any other condition”. Therefore, in accordance with Spanish law “three years of uninterrupted possession in good faith” are enough for the acquisition of title whereas California law has not expressly adopted a doctrine of adverse possession for personal property – such as works of art – and, moreover, “thieves cannot pass good title to anyone, including a good faith purchaser”. Besides, California law extends to six years the statute of limitations for claims involving the return of stolen property and Cassirer brought the claim only five years after it discovered the painting hanging at the Museum in Madrid.
Having determined that the laws in conflict were different, the court of appeals then examined and agreed that both jurisdictions – Spain and California – “have a legitimate interest in applying their respective laws on ownership of stolen personal property”. “Spanish law assures Spanish residents that their title to personal property is protected after they have possessed the property in good faith for a set period of time, whereas California law seeks to deter theft, facilitate recovery for victims of theft, and create an expectation that a bona fide purchaser for value of movable property under a ‘chain of title traceable to the thief,’ … does not have title to that property.” Therefore, there was a true conflict of laws, as both jurisdictions had real and legitimate interests in applying their respective law. Additionally, the court had to determine which jurisdiction’s interest “would be more impaired if its policy were subordinated to the policy of the other state.” Otherwise said, “which jurisdiction should be allocated the predominating lawmaking power under the circumstances of the present case”.
To do this, the interests of each jurisdiction were to be measured based on “the circumstances of the particular dispute, not the jurisdiction’s general policy goals expressed in the laws implicated”. The factors to be taken into consideration in this analysis were the “current status of a statute… the location of the relevant transactions and conduct… and the extent to which one jurisdiction’s laws either impose similar duties to the other jurisdiction’s laws, or are accommodated by the other jurisdiction’s laws, such that the application of the other jurisdiction’s laws would only partially—rather than totally—impair the interests of the state whose law is not applied”.
With respect to the first factor, the court said that it was inappropriate to judge which law is better. Also, in reply to the alleged archaism of the Spanish rule, that says that property is acquired after six years of possession, regardless of the stolen nature of the asset, the court replied that the defendant was relying on the possession with good faith during three years.
With respect to the second factor, the court of appeals reasoned that, in accordance with several precedents from the Supreme Court of California, a “jurisdiction ordinarily has the predominant interest in regulating conduct that occurs within its borders”, i.e. on Spanish territory, whereas “where none of the relevant conduct occurs in California, a restrained view of California’s interest in facilitating recovery for one of its residents is warranted.” In the case at hand, “California’s sole contact to the dispute was the happenstance of the plaintiff’s residence there.” Similarly, “California’s governmental interest rests solely on the fortuity that Claude Cassirer moved to California in 1980, at a time when the Cassirer family believed the Painting had been lost or destroyed.” Therefore, “California’s interest in facilitating recovery for that resident was minimal and the extraterritorial reach of its laws was restrained.” Since “no relevant conduct with respect of the Painting occurred in California, the impairment of California’s interest that would result from applying Spanish law would be minimal.”
The court went on to say that, in contrast, “applying California law would significantly impair Spain’s interest in applying Article 1955 of the Spanish Civil Code. For one, because the relevant conduct [the purchase of the painting] occurred in Spain” so that “Spain has the “predominant interest in applying its laws to that conduct.” Furthermore, “applying California law would mean that Spain’s law would not apply to property possessed within Spain’s borders, so long as the initial owner (1) happened to be a California resident (a fact over which… the defendant has no way of knowing or controlling…, and (2) the California resident did not know where the property is located and who possessed it. Applying California law based only on Claude Cassirer’s decision to move to California would strike at the essence of a compelling Spanish law.”
With respect to the third factor and also in accordance with past precedents of the California Supreme Court, “the court should look to whether one jurisdiction’s laws accommodate the other jurisdiction’s interests or imposes duties the other jurisdiction already imposes… A state’s laws can more readily be discarded if the failure to apply its laws would only partially—rather than totally—impair the policy interests of the jurisdiction whose law is not applied…. Here, the failure to apply California’s laws would only partially undermine California’s interests in deterring theft and returning stolen art to victims of theft, which provides further support for limiting the extraterritorial reach of California’s laws to this dispute.
On the other hand, “applying Spanish law would only partially undermine California’s interests in facilitating recovery of stolen art for California residents. California law already contemplates that a person whose art—or other personal property—is stolen may eventually lose the ability to reclaim possession: namely, if the person fails to bring a lawsuit within six years after he discovers the whereabouts of the art… Similarly, Article 1955 of the Spanish Civil Code accommodates California’s interest in deterring theft. As we have explained, Spanish law makes it more difficult for title to vest in an “encubridor,” which includes, “an accessory after the fact,” or someone who “knowingly receives and benefits from stolen property…. If the possessor is proven to be an encubridor, Spanish law extends the period in which the property must be possessed before new prescriptive title is created.”

4. Concluding remarks

This complex and interesting case seems to be coming to an end. In brief, and despite the complexity of the application of the theory of interest analysis, it seems that the US court has given the same solution which a civil court would have given, applying the usual rule that the law applicable to property rights is the law of the place where the property is located at the time of the transfer. So far, it appears that the increasing sensitivity towards cultural property and towards unraveling war crimes has not fully displaced this conflicts rule.

On 11 January 2024, the Apostille Convention entered into force for Canada. The accession of Canada to the Apostille Convention on 12 May 2023 was a milestone for the Apostille Convention and it is perhaps a development that has gone under the radar.

Considering that the Apostille Convention was adopted in 1961 (EIF: 24-I-1965), one may wonder why Canada took so long to join the Apostille Convention. This is primarily because there is no statutory requirement for the legalisation of incoming public documents in Canada. In its response to the 2021 Questionnaire, Canada indicated:

“There is no Canadian statutory requirement to legalise foreign public documents. In some cases, Canadian public authorities have the discretion to determine the applicable authentication requirements. These authorities could require these documents to be legalised.

“In Québec, Article 2822 of the Civil Code of Québec (CCQ) exempts foreign public documents from legalisation by providing that neither the quality nor the signature of a foreign officer issuing a document need [to] be proved. The presumption of authenticity provided by article 2822 CCQ is rebuttable as prescribed by article 2825 CCQ.

“Private-sector organisations and individuals may require legalised foreign public documents, as no law prevents them from doing so. While not a requirement under Canadian law, Canadian embassies and consulates legalise foreign public documents when requested to do so.”

Nevertheless, Canadian – and other – citizens needed to overcome the obstacle of getting Canadian public documents legalised (e.g. by Global Affairs Canada, Authentication Services Section in Ottawa, plus a foreign mission in Canada). What in the lingo is referred to as “outgoing public documents”. This system will continue to operate when the receiving State is not a Contracting Party to the Apostille Convention or in the – rare – case that the public document falls outside the scope of the Apostille Convention e.g. documents executed by diplomatic and consular agents (Art. 1(3)(a) of the Apostille Convention).

No declarations were filed by Canada (apart from the designated Competent Authorities). As expected, no Contracting Party objected to the accession of Canada.

I take the opportunity to also make reference to another milestone for the Apostille Convention: the recent accession of the People’s Republic of China. The People’s Republic of China acceded to the Convention on 8 March 2023 and entered into force on 7 November 2023.

The Apostille Convention has continued to apply to both the Special Administrative Regions of Hong Kong and Macao given the declarations of the People’s Republic of China. The Apostille Convention first applied to Hong Kong (EIF-1965) and Macao (EIF-1969) when they were both under the international responsibility of the United Kingdom and Portugal, respectively.

As indicated in its declaration, the Apostille Convention will not be applicable between the People’s Republic of China and those Contracting States that China does not recognize as sovereign states (i.e. no bilateral application) and understandably, no list was provided. India objected to the accession of the People’s Republic of China in accordance with Article 12 of the Apostille Convention, and as a result, the Convention will not apply between these two States.

With the accession of both Canada and the People’s Republic of China, the Apostille Convention applies in -an additional- area of approximately 19 million square kilometers. These developments and the existence of the e-APP (electronic Apostille Programme) show that the Apostille Convention remains relevant and continues to grow from strength to strength.

An international symposium on the circulation of personal status be held on January 19, 2024 at the Italian Court of Cassation.

The symposium is organized by the Société de législation comparée (Section méthodologie comparée du droit civil), the Associazione Civilisti Italiani, the International Commission on Civil Status in collaboration with the Law Faculty of the Université Côte d’Azur.

The significance of this topic is paramount in light of the growing international mobility of individuals and families. For this reason, the conference will address key aspects of personal status, including civil status, personal identification, the union of persons, parenthood, and nationality.

The approach is decidedly comparative and internationalist, as evidenced by the diverse panel of speakers (and chairs):

• Claudio Scognamiglio (Chairman, Associazione Civilisti Italiani),
• Gustavo Cerqueira (Chairman, Section méthodologie comparée du droit civil de la SLC),
• Nicolas Nord (Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status),
• Francesco Salerno (Università degli Studi di Ferrara),
• Marion Ho-Dac, Professeur (Université d’Artois),
• Camille Reitzer (Deputy Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status),
• Giovanni Di Rosa (Università di Catania),
• Fernanda Munschy (Lawyer at the Strasbourg Bar & Université Haute-Alsace),
• Francesca Bartolini (Università degli Studi Link di Roma),
• Michele Sesta (Università di Bologna),
• Lukas Heckendorn Urscheler (Institut suisse de droit comparé),
• Alessandra Spangaro (Università di Bologna),
• Enrico Al Mureden (Università di Bologna),
• Ilaria Pretelli (Institut suisse de droit comparé),
• Renzo Calvigioni (Associazione Nazionale Ufficiali di Stato Civile e d’Anagrafe, ANUSCA),
• Gordon Choisel (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas),
• Mirzia Bianca (Università di Roma La Sapienza),
• Sylvain Bollée (Université Paris 1 Panthéon-Sorbonne),
• Roberto Senigaglia (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia),
• Hugues Fulchiron (Conseiller extraordinaire à la Cour de cassation, France),
• Sabine Corneloup (Université Paris Panthéon-Assas),
• Liliana Rossi Carleo (Università di Roma Tre).

Presentations will be held in French and Italian.

Those interested in attending can do so either in-person or on-line.

Attendance is free, but prior registration is required by January 17, 2024, through segreteria.civilistiitaliani@gmail.com.

Remote participation is also possible; the link for connecting to the platform will be made available by January 17, 2024, and will be communicated to anyone who requests it.

Additional information, including the full programme of the conference, can be found here or here.

Symposium Directors:

• Enrico Al Mureden (Università di Bologna)
• Gustavo Cerqueira (Université Côte d’Azur ; Chairman, Section Méthodologie comparée du droit civil de la SLC)
• Nicolas Nord (Secretary General of the International Commission on Civil Status)
• Claudio Scognamiglio (Università di Roma Tre; Chairman, Associazione Civilisti Italiani)
• Roberto Senigaglia (Università Ca’ Foscari Venezia)

Veerle Van Den Eeckhout (working at the CJEU) has published a short article on recent CJEU case law in Private International Law matters.

The paper is entitled “CJEU case law. A few observations on recent CJEU case law.” It has been published as a contribution to the fifth volume in the series of the Dialog Internationales Familienrecht. The article sets the scene and contextualizes the findings detailed in the presentation given by the author on April 29, 2023 at the Dialog Internationales Familienrecht 2023 at the University of Münster. See also previously here on the presentation.

In essence, while presenting case law of the CJEU in PIL matters, the Author explored selected methodological aspects of reasoning employed by the Court of Justice, including deductive arguments and those aiming to ensure “consistency” within the whole system.

The Author focuses on case law of the CJEU regarding international family law but, adopting sometimes also a wider perspective, attempts to draw some considerations of relevance for EU private international law in general. Thus, also PIL dynamics unfolding outside the field of international family law were taken into account. For example, case law of the CJEU regarding the notion “cross-border” following the joined cases Parking and Interplastics (C-267/19 and C-323/19) was pointed out.

Moreover, attention was not only paid to case law of the CJEU interpreting PIL-regulations. The Author proves that issues of (international) family law may come to the CJEU in many shapes and forms. In fact, one may say that various roads lead to Luxembourg. Looking from this perspective and attempting to position case law of the CJEU in a wide context, the Author did not only include case law of the CJEU interpreting a PIL-regulation such as the Brussels II bis regulation, but also pointed out case law of the CJEU such as the Coman case (C-673/16) and the Pancharevo case (C-490/20), as well as case law of the CJEU regarding the law on names. Adopting a broad view, also some aspects of the case Belgische Staat (Réfugiée mineure mariée), Case C-230/21, regarding a right to family reunification based on Directive 2003/86, were considered in the analysis  – this case itself giving rise to the formulation of some observations regarding the interaction of (international) family law and migration law (in the broad sense of the word).

The PowerPoint of the presentation in Münster is available here. A version of this PowerPoint including also an extended version thereof is available here.

On SSRN, working versions of the paper are available in Dutch and in English.

Any view expressed in this presentation or in the paper discussed above is the personal opinion of the Author.

This post is part of a series regarding Colonialism and the general structure of (German) Private International Law, based on a presentation I gave in spring 2023. See the introduction here.

As mentioned in the introduction, this series does not intent to automatically pass judgment on a norm or method influenced by colonialism as inherently negative. Instead, the aim is to reveal these influences and to initiate a first engagement with and awareness of this topic and to stimulate a discussion and reflection.

The first post (after the introduction) dealt with classic PIL and colonialism. This second considers structures and values inherent in German or European law, implicitly resonating within the PIL and, thus, expanding those values to people and cases from other parts of the world. This reflects a form of universalist legal understanding that should be foreign to the PIL, yet already echoes in Savigny’s approach. This is particularly evident in the lex fori approach of characterization and the specification of habitual residence.

1. Characterization and Influence of the lex fori

Characterization is the assignment of the connecting object (Anknüpfungsgegenstand) to a conflict of laws norm. The debate on characterization methods, particularly in the first half of the 20th century, has since been resolved with the predominance of “autonomous” or “functional” characterization, integrating elements of lex fori, lex causae, and comparative  methods. The conflict rules are generally interpreted from the perspective of lex fori but with an international private law viewpoint, extending the interpretation of terms in conflict rules beyond their substantive counterparts. Nonetheless, they remain systematically rooted in domestic law, centering on the values of lex fori. This can lead to friction when system concepts from foreign law stem from entirely different value systems. Additionally, methodologically, each connecting factor has only one conflict rule, thereby being excluding concerning other connecting factors.

This can be well illustrated with a family law example. The German Civil Code (BGB) and the PIL Act (EGBGB) are based on a family concept derived from Western Christian traditions, in recent years moving away from most patriarchal values. The core family typically comprises married or cohabiting parents and their child(ren), with special forms recognized but mostly aligned or approximated to this ideal. This understanding of the nuclear family is reflected in conflict rules. Articles 13 EGBGB onwards begin with marriage and its consequences as the traditional starting point of the family. Article 17b then encompasses modern non-traditional marital forms (registered partnerships, same-sex marriage, marriage with at least one non-binary spouse). Articles 19 onwards regulate questions about parentage, parent-child relationships, and adoption as a specialized form of establishing such relationships.

Frictions may arise with fundamentally different family concepts. A striking example is the Avunculat, expressing a unique kinship between the mother’s brother and a child, which can be socially and legally equated with or even surpass or replace the relationship with the biological father. German conflict rules do not account for such kinship as Article 19 EGBGB (parentage) only covers the “natural parentage,” i.e., descent from – usually – biological parents. Potentially, the uncle-child relationship could be subsumed under Article 24 EGBGB (guardianship), given an apparent caretaking relationship. However, this results in a different connecting factor than Article 19 EGBGB, which specifies an alternative connection that potentially leads to a parentage relationship. The Avunculat illustrates that a foreign family form, not aligning with the Christian-based nuclear family, is treated differently under conflict law, despite possibly holding the same status in its culture as the nuclear family does in German law. The characterization, starting with lex fori, endeavors to assimilate foreign family forms into our value framework.

2. Habitual Residence

Traditionally, the determination of the applicable law (personal statute) for an individual is based on nationality. However, in recent decades, the connection to nationality has been increasingly replaced by the concept of habitual residence, particularly influenced by EU regulations and recent international agreements, prompting a reconsideration even within German law. Habitual residence is autonomously defined depending on the legal source, but it is generally understood as the person’s center of life, which must be of a certain duration. In Germany, it is primarily determined factually, with subjective elements playing a subordinate role.

According to prevailing doctrine in Germany and recent EU Court of Justice rulings on EU law, a person can only have one habitual residence. It is assumed that a person can have only one “actual” center of life, necessitating the determination of the “real” habitual residence in case of doubt. This approach is grounded in the societal and familial notion that a person settles with their family in one place, occasionally leaving for another place—a representation of a sedentary lifestyle. However, this contradicts lifestyles such as those of nomadic tribes, particularly outside the “Global North,” and the emerging phenomenon of “digital nomads” in the whole world. This understanding of habitual residence underscores the phenomenon, as hinted at in the Avunkulat context, that the prevalent lifestyle in Germany and Europe/the Global North is considered the standard, requiring other lifestyles to somehow fit into it.

3. Assessment

a) Characterization

Western or German world views are also imposed on foreign legal phenomena if the characterization, as is often the case, regards the lex fori not only as the starting point but at the same time as an implicit limit. Nevertheless, the key to integrating foreign legal phenomena more autonomously lies precisely in the characterization and the dispute over its method. Characterization has the starting point that the conflict rules under which the connecting factor is to be subsumed originate from the German legislator  and are therefore interpreted methodically in the same way as the (German) lex fori. However, teleological interpretation offers the possibility of moving further away from the lex fori: It involves the interpretation of the function conflict-of-law rules. Function and objective is to cover foreign legal phenomena in the same way as domestic ones. Thus, a lex fori limit is by no means as mandatory as it appears to be. Instead, a broad understanding of the system concepts of the conflict rules is possible and intended.

With regard to legal phenomena that are still little researched and little known in jurisprudence, such as the avunculat, it is advisable for courts to proceed with particular caution. If the status of the maternal uncle actually replaces that of the father, consideration should be given to understand the avunculate as part of “parentage” in Article 19 EGBGB. If his legal status complements that of the father, Art. 24 EGBGB could be more useful. Other categories, such as adoption, might also to be considered. It would be desirable if more anthropological and comparative law work and research were carried out in order to support the courts in making such determinations.

b) Habitual Residence

As far as the understanding of habitual residence in PIL is concerned, in extreme cases such as those of (digital or traditional) nomads, but also cross-border commuters, which are becoming increasingly common, it would be possible to deviate from the principle that there is only one centre of life and thus one habitual residence. If two habitual residences were affirmed as the starting point in these cases, the next step would be to ask whether the specific rule requires only one habitual residence. Such a need can be affirmed, for example, in the case of jurisdiction rules in Article 3 Brussels IIter Regulation. In this case, preference should be given to the habitual residence that is even more “closely” linked to the connecting factor. This corresponds to the judgement to find only “the” habitual residence of the majority.

However, if the rule does not have a particular need for there to be only one habitual residence, both residences should count equally. If, for example, a rule is intended to express a common connection between two spouses to a legal system, as is often the case in international family law (e.g. Art. 5, 8 Rome III Regulation; Art. 22, 26 Brussels I Regulation; Art. 14 I and II EGBGB), the habitual residence of both spouses at one of the relevant connecting factors can easily be used as a basis, be it in a case of party autonomy, be it in a case of objective connecting factors.

by Patrick Ostendorf (HTW Berlin)

The principle of party autonomy gives the parties to a contract the opportunity to determine the applicable substantive (contract) law themselves by means of a choice-of-law clause – and thus to avoid (simple) mandatory rules that would otherwise bite. According to EU Private International law, however, the choice of the applicable contract law requires a genuine international element: in purely domestic situations, i.e. where “all other elements relevant to the situation at the time of the choice” are located in a single country, all the mandatory rules of this country remain applicable even if the parties have chosen a foreign law (Art. 3 (3) Rome I Regulation).

In the absence (for the time being) of relevant case law from the European Court of Justice, the precise requirements of this threshold are not yet settled. However, in a recent judgment, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) has – seemingly for the first time – considered the requirements for a sufficient international element in this respect.

The decision concerned a lease agreement for an apartment in Berlin which was rented out by the embassy of a foreign state (the embassy acting on behalf of the foreign ministry of that state, which was the owner of the apartment). The lease contained a choice-of-law clause in favor of the law of that state and was drafted in the language of that state.

As the lease was entered into for a fixed term, the landlord informed the tenant shortly before the expiry of the lease that it would not be renewed and asked them to vacate the premises accordingly. The tenant in turn invoked section 575(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB), according to which a fixed-term lease agreement is deemed to have been concluded for an indefinite period of time if the landlord has failed to inform the tenant in writing of the reasons for the fixed term at the time the lease was concluded.

The Bundesgerichtshof concludes that these facts constitute a purely domestic situation within the meaning of Art. 3 (3) of the Rome I Regulation; therefore section 575 BGB (a mandatory provision of the German Civil Code) applies notwithstanding the governing law clause in the contract providing otherwise. Accordingly, the request by the claimant to grant eviction has to be rejected.

As a starting point for its analysis, the Court emphasised that the genuine international element required for a choice of law must be of some significance and weight for the specific transaction in question (based on the principles of the applicable conflict-of-laws rules, in particular the connections with a foreign state referred to in Art. 4 Rome I Regulation), whereas subjective references to a foreign law based solely on the agreement of the parties will generally not suffice.

Even the fact that a foreign state was a party to the lease agreement does not, in the view of the Court, change this, since the embassy, acting both as the agent of the foreign state and as the institution responsible for the further implementation of the lease agreement, constitutes a branch within the meaning of Art. 19(2) of the Rome I Regulation (“If the contract is concluded in the course of the business of a branch, agency or other establishment, or if, under the contract, performance is the responsibility of such a branch, agency or establishment, the place where the branch, agency or establishment is situated shall be treated as the place of habitual residence”). It follows that not only the tenant’s but also the landlord’s habitual residence is deemed to be in Germany. Finally, according to the Court, the fact that the apartment in question was primarily used for the accommodation of embassy staff (although not in the present case), that the contract was concluded in a foreign language and that the tenant was (also) a foreign national is not sufficient to establish a genuine international element as well.

Although the decision of the Bundesgerichtshof is undoubtedly well reasoned, it reaches the opposite conclusion to recent English case law: in particular, the English Court of Appeal has (even before Brexit) taken the contrary view that the use of a foreign contractual language or a standard form contract tailored to international transactions would even on a standalone basis be sufficient to constitute a relevant international element – and accordingly allow the parties to escape the restrictions stipulated by Art. 3(3) Rome I Regulation (Dexia Crediop SpA v Comune di Prato [2017] EWCA Civ 428, discussed here).

Further guidance from the European Court of Justice on the interpretation of Art. 3(3) Rome I Regulation would therefore be desirable.