Flux des sites DIP

Symeon C Symeonides recently published his regular piece with American Journal of Comparative Law  titled “Private International Law Bibliography 2020: U.S. and Foreign Sources in English.”

The European Commission published yesterday its assessment of the UK application to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention (the document is only available in two EU official languages, as well as in English). Its conclusion:

“the Commission takes the view that the European Union should not give its consent to the accession of the United Kingdom to the 2007 Lugano Convention. For the European Union, the Lugano Convention is a flanking measure of the internal market and relates to the EU-EFTA/EEA context. In relation to all other third countries the consistent policy of the European Union is to promote cooperation within the framework of the multilateral Hague Conventions. The United Kingdom is a third country without a special link to the internal market. Therefore, there is no reason for the European Union to depart from its general approach in relation to the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Hague Conventions should provide the framework for future cooperation between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the field of civil judicial cooperation”.

Source: https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/communication-assessment-application-united-kingdom-great-britain-and-northern-ireland-accede-2007-lugano-convention_en

On May 4th, 2021, the European Commission issued a Communication offering its Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention.

The Communication offers the Commission’s analysis on the application and explains why it considers that the EU should not give its consent to the accession of the United Kingdom to the Lugano Convention.

Nature of the Lugano Convention

The Communication explains that the Lugano Convention represents an essential feature of a common area of justice and is a flanking measure for the EU’s economic relations with the EFTA/EEA countries.  Thus, the Lugano Convention supports the EU’s relationship with third countries which have a particularly close regulatory integration with the EU, including by aligning with (parts of) the EU acquis. Though the Convention is, in principle, open to accession of “any other State” upon invitation from the Depositary upon unanimous agreement of the Contracting Parties, it is not the appropriate general framework for judicial cooperation with any given third country. The Convention is based on a high level of mutual trust among the Contracting Parties and represents an essential feature of a common area of justice commensurate to the high degree of economic interconnection based on the applicability of the four freedoms.

International framework for the EU’s civil justice cooperation with third countries

As a consequence, the European Commission argues that the appropriate framework for cooperation with third countries in the field of civil judicial cooperation is provided by the multilateral Hague Conventions, i.e. the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.

Conclusion

The Commission concludes:

In view of the above, the Commission takes the view that the European Union should not give its consent to the accession of the United Kingdom to the 2007 Lugano Convention. For the European Union, the Lugano Convention is a flanking measure of the internal market and relates to the EU-EFTA/EEA context. In relation to all other third countries the consistent policy of the European Union is to promote cooperation within the framework of the multilateral Hague Conventions. The United Kingdom is a third country without a special link to the internal market. Therefore, there is no reason for the European Union to depart from its general approach in relation to the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Hague Conventions should provide the framework for future cooperation between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the field of civil judicial cooperation.

The Commission then advises:

Stakeholders concerned, and in particular practitioners engaged in cross-border contractual matters involving the European Union, should take this into account when making a choice of international jurisdiction.

Arthur Poon recently published an article with International and Comparative Law Quarterly titled: “Determining the Place of Performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast.”

The abstract reads as follows:

“This article calls for a reassessment of the methodology in determining the place of contractual performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. The first part of the article deals with Article 7(1)(a). It argues that in light of the adoption of autonomous linking factors under Article 7(1)(b), more types of contracts presently not covered within the ambits of Article 7(1)(b) should centralise jurisdiction at the places of performance of their characteristic obligations. The second part of the article considers the way Article 7(1) operates when there are multiple places of performance under the contract. The test devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard is not only difficult to apply, but the application of the test also often does not guarantee a close connection between the claim and the court taking jurisdiction. This article argues that when a claim is made in respect of a contractual obligation to be performed in more than one Member State, Article 4 should be applied instead of Article 7(1).”

The new issue of the AJ Contrat (12/2020) offers a series of articles (in French) compiled by Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Nîmes, France), concerning the CISG on the occasion of its 40th anniversary. 

The dossier contains the following articles:

The challenge of uniform interpretation, by Claude Witz (Saarland University) 

The CISG’s articulation with the European Union Law, by Cyril Nourissat (University of Lyon 3)

Back on the parties’ silence about the GISG’s application, by Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Nîmes) and Nicolas Nord (University of Strasbourg)

The Vienna Convention and the action directe: back on dangerous liaisons, by Etienne Farnoux (University of Strasbourg)

The links between the foreclosure period and the deadline prescription period (about CISG’s Article 39), by Marc Mignot (University of Strasbourg)

The issue of interest rates on arrears, by Franco Ferrari (New York University)

For a reinterpretation of the concept of impediment to perform, by Ludovic Pailler (University of Lyon 3)

The full table of contents is available here.

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

The EFFORTS Project tackles, notably, the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order. By investigating the implementation of these Regulations in the national procedural law of, respectively, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, and Luxembourg, the Project aims at enhancing the enforcement of claims through more efficient procedures, case management, and cooperation in cross-border disputes.

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

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

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

The European Group of Private International Law (EGPIL-GEDIP) has published the minutes (in French) of its 2020 Meeting.

The topics discussed during the meeting included a proposal for a regulation concerning the applicable law to in rem rights, the codification of the general part of EU private international law and the accession of the European Union to the Hague Judgments Convention.

The EGPIL has also published separately a draft proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to rights in rem in tangible assets and Observations on the possible accession of the European Union to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments.

Coming up tomorrow – Book Launch: Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts – 4 May 2021

 

The global PIL community is invited to celebrate the launch of the book “Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts” (Oxford University Press, 2021). This study provides a definitive reference guide to the key choice of law principles on international contracts, including 60 national and regional reports written by experts from all parts of the world, and a dedicated commentary on the Hague Principles as applied to international commercial arbitration.

When: May 4, 2021 02:00 PM CEST

Where: Online (Zoom-Webinar)

Register here:

https://unilu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ivzYmgFQQkSdUKZCEDRriQ

After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The event will also be live streamed via YouTube; the link will be posted five minutes before the start time here.

 

The programme reads as follows:

 

14:00-14:10 – Welcome and acknowledgments | Daniel Girsberger

14:10-14:35 – Overview of the process | Daniel Girsberger and Marta Pertegás

14:35-15:00 – General Comparative Report, with a focus on Art. 3 | Thomas Kadner Graziano

15:00-15:10 – Further general matters | Jan L Neels

15:10-15:15 – Publisher’s address | Andrew Dickinson

15:15-15:20 – Regional perspective: Africa | Jan L Neels and Eesa A Fredericks

15:20-15:30 – Regional perspective: Asia | Yuko Nishitani and Béligh Elbalti

15:30-15:35 – Regional perspective: Australasia | Brooke Marshall

15:35-15:40 – Regional perspective: Europe | Thomas Kadner Graziano

15:40-15:50 – Regional perspective: Latin America | José A Moreno Rodríguez and Lauro Gama

15:50-15:55 – Regional perspective: North America | Geneviève Saumier

15:55-16:05 – HCCH, UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT perspectives | João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Luca Castellani, and Anna Veneziano

16:05-16:15 – Future plans and concluding remarks | Agatha Brandão and Daniel Girsberger

16:15-16:45 – Q&A

 

More information about the book:

https://global.oup.com/academic/product/choice-of-law-in-international-commercial-contracts-9780198840107?cc=ch&lang=en&#

A 30% discount code will be available for all attendees.

 

In May 2021 the activity of the CJEU regarding PIL will focus on insolvency and civil and commercial matters.

The decision in C- 709/19, Vereniging van Effectenbezitters (first chamber: J.L. Bonichot, L. Bay Larsen, C. Toader, N. Jääskinen, and M. Safjan as reporting judge) will be delivered on May 12th. AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s Opinion was published last December. To the first question, once again on Article 7(2) Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Erfolgsort in a case of purely financial damage, he had proposed to drop the approach holding the location of an investment account as the place of the damage, and requiring particular circumstances to concur for jurisdiction to be established at that place. Moreover, he had provided a separate analysis of the fact that the claim had been filed by a Stichting under Article 3:305a Dutch civil code for merely declaratory purposes (the only possibility open at the time). NoA: A similar request for a preliminary judgment is currently pending before the Court, see C-498/20. Recent examples of claim-bundling strategy following the Dutch model, apt to raise (should they get to court) doubts relating to jurisdiction, can be found in the press: see, recently, FAZ.

A second PIL-related decision will be published on May 20. In Case C-913/19, CNP, the referring court asked several questions to the CJEU on section 3 of Chapter II of the Brussels Ibis Regulation and Articles 7(2) and 7(5) of said Regulation. AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona’s Opinion, delivered last January, follows closely the case law of the CJEU on Article 7(5); it additionally analyses its relationship to Articles 145 and 152 of the Directive 2009/138/EC, on the taking-up and pursuit of the business of insurance and reinsurance. The case has been allocated to the third chamber (S. Prechal, N. Wahl, F. Biltgen, J. Passer, L.S. Rossi as reporting judge).

On the same day, the Opinion of AG Campos’s in C-25/20, Alpine Bau, will also be published. Here, the Višje sodišče v Ljubljani (Slovenia) asks the CJEU whether Article 32(2) of Regulation 1346/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the rules on the time limits for lodging creditors’ claims, and the consequences of lodging claims out of time under the law of the State in which the secondary proceedings are being conducted, apply to the lodgement of claims in secondary proceedings by the liquidator in the main insolvency proceeding.

No other PIL-related decisions, conclusions or hearings are scheduled so far. Case C-124/20, Bank Melli Iran, might nevertheless be of interest, in that it relates to commercial policies and the protection against the effects of the extraterritorial application of a third State legislation. AG Hogan’s Opinion will be published on May 12th.

The official version of the different agreements concluded in December 2020 between the European Union and the United Kingdom has been published yesterday (30 April 2021) at the Official Journal of the European Union. This version replaces retroactively the one used until now. The official version is available in all official languages of the European Union as well as in English. Please find the English version attached (with the Trade and Cooperation Agreement starting page 12 of the pdf).

brexit-final-version-of-agreeements-and-related-documentsDownload

On 14 April, the Working Group on the Practical Handbook on the Operation of the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention met for the first time. Comprised of experts with experience in the operation or implementation of the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention, the Working Group will meet via videoconference every two weeks, between 14 April and 23 June, in order to continue the development of a draft Practical Handbook on the operation of the Convention. More information on the 2000 Protection of Adults Convention is available here.

On 20 April, the Permanent Bureau announced the launch of the Legal Guide to Uniform Instruments in the Area of International Commercial Contracts, with a Focus on Sales, a joint publication of the Secretariats of UNCITRAL, UNIDROIT and the HCCH. The Legal Guide offers an overview of the principal legislative texts prepared by each organisation and illustrates how these texts interact to achieve the shared goals of predictability and flexibility. It is intended as a user-friendly resource for those interested in the adoption, application, and interpretation of uniform contract law. More information is available here.

On 22 April, the HCCH participated in the online international seminar “The Practical Operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction“, organised by the German Foundation for International Legal Cooperation (IRZ) and the Ministry of Education and Science of the Republic of Kazakhstan. The seminar was attended by more than 100 participants from Germany, Kazakhstan and Turkey. This event was a follow-up to the seminar on the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention held on 9 December 2020. The recording of the seminar is available here.

On 29 April, Professor William Duncan, former Deputy Secretary General of the HCCH, received an honorary doctorate from Trinity College Dublin, the highest form of recognition from the College. This honour follows his Presidential Distinguished Service Award for the Irish Abroad in November 2020 and is a further tribute to Professor Duncan’s life-long contribution to academic research, law reform, and children’s rights both in Ireland and abroad. On behalf of the HCCH, the Permanent Bureau congratulates Professor Duncan on being awarded this prestigious honour.

 

Vacancy: The HCCH is currently seeking a(n) (Assistant) Legal Officer. The deadline for the submission of applications is this Sunday, 2 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

Professor Yeo Tiong Min, SC (honoris causa) will be delivering the Yong Pung How Professorship of Law Lecture 2021 on Thursday, 6 May 2021, 5:00 to 6:00 pm (Singapore time). The title of the talk is ‘The Changing Global Landscape for Foreign Judgments.’ The synopsis is as follows:

There have been significant advances in the global landscape for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in recent years. The two most significant international developments have been the coming into force in 2015 of the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements, and the completion in 2019 of the Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters. Singapore has responded to the global environment, in bringing the former Convention into force under Singapore law in 2016, and in making extensive amendments to the Reciprocal Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Act in 2019. 2020 also saw the publication of the second edition of the Multilateral Memorandum on Enforcement of Commercial Judgments for Money by the Standing International Forum of Commercial Courts and the Asian Principles for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments by the Asian Business Law Institute. The lecture will review these and other developments and their implications for Singapore law.

The webinar is free of charge. Further details and the link for registration may be found here.

Monika Zalnieriute (University of New South Wales) has posted Data Transfers after Schrems II: The EU-US Disagreements Over Data Privacy and National Security on SSRN.

In the long-awaited Schrems II decision, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) took a radical, although not an unexpected, step in invalidating the Privacy Shield Agreement which facilitated the European Union – United States data transfers. Schrems II illuminates the long-lasting international disagreements between the EU and USA over data protection, national security, and the fundamental differences between the public and private approaches to protection of human rights in data-driven economy and modern state. This article approaches the decision via an interdisciplinary lens of international law and international relations and situates it in a broader historical context. In particular, I rely on the historical institutionalist approach which emphasizes the importance of time and timing (also called sequencing) as well as institutional preferences of different actors to demonstrate that Schrems II decision further solidifies and cements CJEU’s principled approach to data protection, rejecting data securitization and surveillance in the post-Snowden era. Schrems II aims to re-balance the terms of international cooperation in data-sharing across the Atlantic and beyond. It is the outcome that the US tech companies and the government feared. Yet, they are not the only actors displeased with the decision. An institutionalist emphasis enables us to see that the EU is not a monolithic block, and Schrems II outcome is also contrary to the strategy and preferences of the EU Commission. The invalidation of the Privacy Shield will now (again) require either a reorientation of EU policy and priorities, or accommodation of the institutional preferences of its powerful political ally – the USA. The CJEU decision goes against the European Data Strategy, and places a $7.1 trillion transatlantic economic relationship at risk. Historical institutional analysis suggests the structural changes in the US legal system to address the inadequacies in the Schrems II judgment are unlikely. Therefore, the EU Commission will act quick to create a solution – another quick contractual ‘fix’ – to accommodate US exceptionalism and gloss over the decades of disagreement between the EU and USA over data protection, national security and privacy. When two powerful actors are unwilling to change their institutional preferences, ‘contracting out’ the protection of human rights in international law is the most convenient option.

The paper is forthcoming in the Vanderbilt Journal of Transnational Law.

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑301/20 (UE, HC v Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypotheken-Bank AG), which is about the Succession Regulation. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 69 du règlement (UE) no 650/2012 […], lu conjointement avec l’article 70, paragraphe 3, de ce règlement, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’il y a lieu de reconnaître les effets de la copie certifiée conforme d’un certificat successoral européen qui était valable lorsqu’elle a été présentée la première fois, mais qui a expiré avant que l’autorité compétente prenne la décision sollicitée.
À titre d’exception, en cas d’indices raisonnables que le certificat successoral européen a été rectifié, modifié, retiré ou suspendu dans ses effets avant la décision de cette autorité, celle‑ci peut exiger la production d’une nouvelle copie ou d’une copie prorogée ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?docid=240556&text=&dir=&doclang=FR&part=1&occ=first&mode=DOC&pageIndex=0&cid=12509605

Posted at the request of Sahil Verma, Managing Editor, Trade, Law and Development

Special Issue on Trade and Technology: Rebooting Global Trade for the Digital
Millennium
Issue 13.1 | Summer’21

Founded in 2009, the philosophy of Trade, Law and Development has been to generate and
sustain a constructive and democratic debate on emergent issues in international economic law
and to serve as a forum for the discussion and distribution of ideas. In keeping with these ideals,
the Board of Editors is pleased to announce “Trade and Technology: Rebooting Global Trade for the
Digital Millennium” as the theme for its next Special Issue (Vol. XIII, No. 1).

The WTO framework emerged out of the requirement to promote comparative advantages of
countries in the post-Industrial Revolution era. However, the developments that followed via
Ministerial Conferences, Council discussions and Appellate Body Reports have not moved away
from the traditional methods of trading involving brick-and-mortar factories, recognised fiat
currency, etc. With the unstoppable growth in digital innovation and dense proliferation of the
Internet and ICTs, International Economic Law and its framers must go back to the negotiating
table to chalk out a novel framework relevant for the new digital millennium.

E-Commerce emerged as the virtual marketplace connecting consumers to sellers across borders.
Artificial Intelligence (AI) holds enormous potential to solve efficiency deficits in manufacturing,
public health and education. 3D Printing is expected to meet demand shortages of essentials like
hearing aids. Blockchain and Digital Currencies could change payments and banking services as
we know it along with possible implications for trade finance opportunities. This Issue aims to
foster stimulating discussions on what these developments mean for trade as we know it.

In addition to these developments, the COVID-19 outbreak provides strong impetus for
countries to relook their digital trade and investment policies as reliance on digital resources
increase. While some steps have been taken to include digital technologies in regional trade
agreements, a more comprehensive and cohesive framework is yet to emerge in this regard.

Moreover, given the significance of these issues, governments across the world have begun
implementing rules and regulations for data privacy, cyber security, etc. The differences across
regulatory regimes could cause problems as to their interoperability across countries. The impact
of these regulations on the international trade level is yet to be seen.

An illustrative list of areas under the theme that authors could write upon are:

E-commerce
Artificial Intelligence Summer, 2021
Vol. XIII, No. 1
Implications for Trade Facilitation
Blockchain
Data Protection and Security
Competitiveness and Digital Taxation
Digital Divide between Advanced Economies and Developing World
Impact on Investment
Trade Policy
Implications for Gender Equality

These sub-issues are not exhaustive, and the Journal is open to receiving submissions on all
aspects related to Trade and Technology and its impact on the global trading system. This special
issue, currently scheduled for publication in Summer 2021, will provide an ideal platform to
deliberate on such issues related to trade and technology. Accordingly, the Board of Editors
of Trade, Law and Development is pleased to invite original, unpublished manuscripts for the
Special Issue on Trade and Technology: Rebooting Global Trade for the Digital Millennium for publication
as ‘Articles’, ‘Notes’, ‘Comments’ and ‘Book Reviews’.

Manuscripts may be submitted via e-mail or ExpressO.

In case of any queries, please feel free to contact us at: editors[at]tradelawdevelopment[dot]com.

This Thursday AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in an Austrian case pertaining to the interpretation of the Succession Regulation and in particular to its Articles 69 (Effects of the European Certificate of Succession)  and 70 (Certified copies of the Certificate), namely in the case Vorarlberger Landes- und Hypotheken-Bank, C-301/20.

As the Opinion itself clarifies it at its point 2, the Court asked its AG to elaborate only on the third preliminary question, which reads as follows:

Must Article 69 read in conjunction with Article 70(3) of the EU Succession Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the legitimising effect of the certified copy of [an ECS] must be recognised if it was still valid when it was first submitted but expired before the requested decision of the authority, or does that provision not preclude national law if the latter requires the certificate to be valid even at the time of the decision?

According to Article 70(3) of the Regulation, the certified copies issued shall be valid for a limited period of six months, to be indicated in the certified copy by way of an expiry date.

As AG clarifies, the preliminary question seeks to determine the precise moment in relation to which the authority to which the certified copy is presented must verify the validity of this copy (point 25). In principle, two solutions already hinted in the preliminary question seem to be possible for AG: the certified copy has to be valid at the time of its submission to the authority or it has to be valid at the time of the decision (point 26).

However, as AG acknowledges, it has to be first decided whether the Succession Regulation determines itself the moment relevant for the validity of a certified copy or this issue is left for the Member States to decide (point 44).

Ultimately, he concludes that it is the Regulation itself that determines such relevant moment (point 46) and that the legitimising effect of the certified copy of an ECS must be recognized if it was still valid when it was first submitted to an authority, even where subsequently the validity of this certificate has expired (point 63).

This interpretation is accompanied by a caveat to the effect that, by way of exception, if there are reasonable grounds for considering that the ECS has been rectified, modified, withdrawn or suspended as to its effectiveness prior to the adoption of the requested decision, the authority may call for the production of a new certified copy or a certified copy with an extended period of its validity (point 76).

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

Cressida Mawdesley-Thomas has overview of the facts and issues in Johnson v Berentzen & Anor [2021] EWHC 1042 (QB) here. Stacey J essentially confirms the conclusions of Tipples J in Pandya.

The case concerns the extent of the ‘evidence and procedure’ exclusion from the Rome II Regulation on applicable law in the event of non-contractual obligations.  For the reasons I outlined in my review of the latter (readers please refer to same), I continue to disagree. With counsel for claimant I would suggest Pandya wrongly interpreted A15(h) Rome II in concluding that the provisions of A15 (‘scope of the law applicable) are to be construed widely , and the evidence and procedure exclusion (not: ‘exception’), narrowly.

Something for the Court of Appeal to look into, I would suggest.

Geert.

EU Private International Law, 3rd ed. 2021, para 4.79 ff.

 

Benedikt Windau, the editor of a fabulous German blog on civil procedural law, www.zpoblog.de, recently interviewed Federal Judge Dr Harmut Rensen, Member of the Tenth Panel of the division for civil and commercial matters at the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) on the experiences with video hearings in national an international patent matters in the pandemic. I allow myself to pick up a few elements from this fascinating interview in the following for our international audience:

The Tenth Panel functions as a court of first appeal (Berufungsgericht) in patent nullity proceedings and as a court of second appeal for legal review only (Revisionsgericht) in patent infringement proceedings. In both functions, particularly in its function as court of first appeal, actors from all over the world may be involved, and indeed, Judge Rensen reported about parties and their respective representatives and teams from the USA, Japan, South Korea, the UK, France, Italy and Spain during the last year.

Obviously, the start of the pandemic raised the question how to proceed, once physical hearings on site could no longer take place as before, since particularly in the appeal proceedings parties had usually appeared with several lawyers, patent lawyers, technical experts, interpreters etc., i.e. a large number of people had gathered in rather small court rooms, to say nothing of the general public and media. Staying all proceedings until an expected end of the pandemic (for which we are still waiting) would indeed have infringed the parties‘ fundamental procedural right to effective justice, abstaining from oral hearings and resorting to submission and exchange of written documents instead, as theoretically provided as an option under section 128 (2) German Code of Civil Procedure, would evidently not have been satisfying in matters as complex as patent matters (as well as probably in most other matters).

German civil procedural law allows for video hearings under section 128a (1) German Code of Civil Procedure. It reads (in the Governments official, yet may be not entirely perfect translation): „The court may permit the parties, their attorneys-in-fact, and advisers, upon their filing a corresponding application or ex officio, to stay at another location in the course of a hearing for oral argument, and to take actions in the proceedings from there. In this event, the images and sound of the hearing shall be broadcast in real time to this location and to the courtroom.“ The key word is „permit“. If the court „permits“ the parties etc. to proceed as described, it does not mean that the parties are required to do so. And indeed, parties applied for postponing scheduled hearings instead of going into video hearings. The presiding judge of the court has to decide on such a motion according to section 227 on „changes of date for scheduled hearings“. Section 227 (1) Sentence 1 reads: „Should substantial grounds so require, a hearing may be cancelled or deferred, or a hearing for oral argument may be postponed“. Sentence 2 reads: „The following are not substantial grounds: No. 1: The failure of a party to appear, or its announcement that it will not appear, unless the court is of the opinion that the party was prevented from appearing through no fault of its own“. Is this enough ground to reject the motion in light of the offer to go into video hearings? The Tenth Panel was brave enough to answer this question positively. Further, it was brave enough to overcome the friction between section 128a – permission for video hearings to be decided by the entire bench of the court at the opening of the first hearing – and section 227 (1) – decision about the motion to postpone a scheduled hearing by the presiding judge prior to that hearing. In the interest of progress in e-justice and effective access to justice in times of the pandemic, this is to be applauded firmly, all the more because the Panel worked hard, partly on its own initiative (as the general administration of the court would have been far too slow), to equip the court room with the necessary video technology: several cameras showing each judge and the entire bench, at the same time making sure that no camera reveals internal notes, the same for each party and team. The video conference tool that is currently used is MS Teams (despite all obvious concerns) as being the most reliable one in terms of broadcasting image and sound. The Panel invited to technical rehearsals the day before the hearing and for feed-backs afterwards, in order to improve itself and in order to build up trust, which seemed to have been quite successful. The specific nature of patent proceedings resulted in the insight that the function „screen sharing“ is one of the most helpful tools which will probably continue to be used in post-pandemic times. Sounds to me like examples of best practice. In sometimes rather „traditional“ environments of the German administration of justice, this is not a matter of course.

In relation to sovereignty issues when foreign parties are involved, the Panel takes the view that the territorial sovereignty of a foreign jurisdiction is not affected by a mere permission in the sence of section 128a because the place of the hearings can be considered still as being the locus of the court, i.e. Karlsruhe, Germany. Judge Rensen reported about talks between the Federal Ministry of Justice and its counterparts on the level of the states to the opposite, but as Judge Rensen pointed out, these are ongoing talks amongst ministerial officers, no court decisions or specific legislations that would bind the Panel. Things are cetainly more difficult when it comes to the taking of evidence. The Panel has done this only once so far, apparently within the scope of application of the EU Taking of Evidence Regulation. This case was specific, insofar as the testimony appeared to be entirely in line with and supported by undisputed facts and other testimonies, and these circumstances established a particularly solid overall picture about the point. This is why the Panel held the video testimony to be sufficient, which might mean that in mixed pictures the Panel might tend towards insisting on testimony in physical presence. In general, Judge Rensen supported judge-made progress, as opposed to specific legislation on legal assistance, as such legislation (like the EU legislation, including its latest recast on the matter) might lead to the misconception that such legislation would be required as a matter of principle in all cases to allow video hearings with foreign participants. For this reason, he pleaded for taking this factor into account before reforming section 128a (if at all), as such legislation would not be in sight in relation to a number of third states. At the same time the work of e.g. the HCCH on improving and modernising legal assistance under the HCCH 1970 Convention on the Taking of Evidence may be helpful nevertheless to promote and support video hearings in legal certainty, see e.g. the HCCH 2020 Guide to good practice on the use of video-link under the Hague Evidence Convention, but indeed the approach towards states staying outside these legal frameworks must be considered likewise.

As the dust settles, the consequences of the British departure from the EU are becoming clearer, including those for British parties litigating on the Continent. Two of Germany’s highest courts have recently ordered litigants with a habitual residence in the UK to provide security for the likely costs of the defendants, which the claimants would have to pay under the German loser pays-system. The decision was taken by both the Federal Supreme Court on 1 March 2021 and by the Federal Patent Court on 15 March 2021. Both rulings have been discussed on the Dispute Resolution Germany blog by Peter Bert here and here.

Duty to Provide Security for Costs under German Procedural Law

Although German procedural law in principle envisages the possibility of an obligation to provide security if demanded by the defendant (see e.g. sec. 110 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and sec. 81(6) of the German Patent Code), the requirement for a UK resident claimant to post security for costs had been illegal as long as the UK was part of the EU. Already in 1997, the ECJ outlawed such demands by German courts in case C-323/95, David Charles Hayes and Jeannette Karen Hayes v Kronenberger GmbH. This decision was based on the prohibition of discrimination on the grounds of nationality (today Art 18 TFEU, ex Art 12 TEC).

As a consequence, litigants with a residence in the EU or the wider EEA have been exempted from the requirement to provide security for costs under sec. 110 of the German Code of Civil Procedure. With Britain now having left the EU and the the transition period having expired, it is reasonably clear the exemption no longer covers UK based claimants, who as of 1 January 2021 may need to provide security for costs upfront.

Exceptions to the Obligation to Provide Security for Legal Costs

Sec. 110(2) no 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure and by reference also sec. 81(6) 1 German Patent Code provides an exception from the claimant’s obligation to post security for costs where “due to international Treaties, no such security deposit may be demanded”. This exception caused the Federal Patent Court to examine more deeply the legal relations between the UK and Germany post-Brexit.

The Court first analyses the Hague Convention on Civil Procedure 1954, which bans   security for costs in Art. 17. This Convention has however not been signed by the UK.

Next, the Federal Patent Court mentions the 1928 Convention Between His Majesty and the President of the German Reich regarding Legal Proceedings in Civil and Commercial Matters. Besides matters such as cross-border service and taking of evidence, the Convention also provides in its Art. 14 that the subjects or citizens of one contracting party “shall not be compelled to give security for costs in any case where a subject or citizen of such other Contracting Party would not be so compelled”. Yet this clause applies only under the proviso “that they are resident in any such territory”, which means the territory of the contracting party where a claim is brought. Since the British claimants in the cases at hand were not resident in Germany, they could not rely on this clause.

The Court further analyses the European Convention on Establishment, which was concluded under the auspices of the Council of Europe in 1955 and binds a number of states, including Germany and the UK. Its Art. 9 and 30 set out exceptions from the requirement to post security for costs. Yet these provisions are limited to natural persons, whereas the claimant in the case discussed was a corporation.

Finally, the Federal Patent Court also discusses the Trade and Corporation Agreement concluded between the EU and the UK on Christmas Eve 2020. Its Art. IP.6 provides for some special rules with regard to the protection of IP rights. But they only cover the “availability, acquisition, scope, maintenance, and enforcement of intellectual property rights” as well as matters affecting the use of intellectual property rights specifically addressed in the TCA. Security for costs is not among them.

Since there was thus no international treaty in the sense of sec. 110(2) no 1 of the German Code of Civil Procedure, the Federal Patent Court decided that the British claimant had to provide security for costs.

The Relevance of the Brussels Convention 1968

Peter Bert discusses in the Dispute Resolution Germany Blog whether the continued applicability of the Brussels Convention 1968, which has been debated various times in this blog, might change the outcome. From my point of view, this is not the case, as the Convention does not address the issue of security for costs but is focused on issues of jurisdiction as well as recognition and enforcement of judgments.

Conclusion

The two German court decisions illustrate the complexity of international litigation post-Brexit. Courts and parties need to deal with a plethora of often dated international conventions concluded before the UK’s accession to the EU. The decisions clearly show the weaknesses of the lack of international agreements and the disadvantages of Brexit for claimants in Germany who are habitually resident in the UK. The situation in other Member States might well be different from Germany’s, possibly giving rise to even further complications.

On Tuesday, May 4, 2021, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its tenth monthly virtual workshop in private international law at 11:00-12:30. Since January of this year, we are alternating between English and German language. Marta Pertegás Sender (Maastricht University) will speak, in English, about the topic Between Global and Regional Private International Law – Seamless Transitions From Regulations to Conventions? The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here This is the ninth such lecture in the series, after those by Mathias Lehmann in June, Eva-Maria Kieninger in July, Giesela Rühl in September, Anatol Dutta in October, Susanne Gössl in November, Marc-Philippe Weller in December, Macjiej Szpunar in January,  Dagmar Coester-Waltjen in February, Horatia Muir Watt in March, and Burkhard Hess in April.  On June 1 we will host Tania Domej (Zurich University), on July 6 Hannah Buxbaum (Indiana University). Stay tuned! If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de