EAPIL blog

Ilaria Viarengo and Francesca Villata (both University of Milan) have edited Planning the Future of Cross Border Families – A Path Through Coordination, which has just been published by Hart.

This book is built upon the outcomes of the EUFam’s Project, financially supported by the EU Civil Justice Programme and led by the University of Milan. Also involved are the Universities of Heidelberg, Osijek, Valencia and Verona, the MPI in Luxembourg, the Italian and Spanish Family Lawyers Associations and training academies for judges in Italy and Croatia. The book seeks to offer an exhaustive overview of the regulatory framework of private international law in family and succession matters. The book addresses current features of the Brussels IIa, Rome III, Maintenance and Succession Regulations, the 2007 Hague Protocol, the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention and new Regulations on Property Regimes. The contributions are authored by more than 30 experts in cross-border family and succession matters. They introduce social and cultural issues of cross-border families, set up the scope of all EU family and succession regulations, examine rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition and enforcement regimes and focus on the current problems of EU family and succession law (lis pendens in third States, forum necessitatis, Brexit and interactions with other legal instruments). The book also contains national reports from 6 Member States and annexes of interest for both legal scholars and practitioners (policy guidelines, model clauses and protocols).

Authors include Christian Kohler, Thomas Pfeiffer, Rosario Espinosa Calabuig, Diletta Danieli, Mirela Župan, Martina Drventic, Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís, Pablo Quinzá Redondo, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Thalia Kruger, Jacopo Re, Stefania Bariatti, Elena D’Alessandro, Cristina González Beilfuss, Maria Caterina Baruffi, Paul Beaumont, Patrick Kinsch, Laura Carballo Pineiro, Andrea Schulz, Hrvoje Grubišic, Cinzia Peraro, and Marta Requejo Isidro.

More information here.

On 2 September 2020, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued an interesting decision on both service of judicial documents and international jurisdiction (Cass., First Civil Chamber, 2 September 2020, no. 19-15.337, unreported).

Although elementary at first view, the case provides a good opportunity to discuss the global understanding and acceptance of European private international law rules by French courts.

Private investors living in France suffered financial losses following financial services contracts concluded with a company governed by English law, established in London. They sued the company before French courts. Despite an agreement conferring jurisdiction in favour of English courts provided for in the general conditions, the Parisian tribunal accepted its jurisdiction. The Parisian Court of appeal confirmed the judgement. The company appealed to the French Supreme Court.

First, the company disputed, on the basis of (inter alia) the Service of documents Regulation, the validity of the writ of summons which was served to the branch manager of the company in France, pursuant domestic procedural rules and not at its head office in London. Second, the company challenged the French jurisdiction by virtue of the jurisdiction clause, pursuant Brussels I bis Regulation, while the first judges had applied the French jurisdictional rules to invalidate the clause.

Were these two EU regulations the relevant legal basis in this case, instead of the domestic PIL rules?

Responding to the first litigious item, the French Supreme Court precludes the application of the Service of documents Regulation and confirms the decision of the Court of appeal. The presence in France of a representative of the foreign company eliminates the cross-border dimension of the transmission of documents. Therefore, the transmission of the writ of summons to the branch manager of the company in France was valid since it complied with French domestic procedural law. Then, regarding the competent jurisdiction, the validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction shall be assessed pursuant Brussels I bis Regulation and not pursuant to national PIL. EU law prevails on national rules. The French Supreme Court invalidates the decision of the Parisian Court of appeal on that latter ground.

Behind these two legal issues, the case deals with the articulation between EU and national PIL rules. Despite the well-known principle of primacy of EU law, French judges still have difficulties to implement EU PIL. More globally, they are maybe not fully aware of the multilevel sources in the field and, in particular, how their articulation works

But why? How could we explain this “judicial malfunction” regarding EU PIL? Without being dramatic, nor prophetic, I would like to suggest two possible lines of thought.

The non-application of the Service of documents Regulation is not surprising regarding the case law of the French Supreme Court. The Commercial Chamber of the Court ruled exactly the same in 2012, regarding another London-based company having a representative in France (Comm. Chamber, 20 November 2012, no. 11-17.653). Domestic procedural rules on service of documents regain the upper hand thanks to the legal representation ad agendumin France. But the French Supreme Court does not give any explicit grounds for its ruling regarding EU law. The European Regulation is set aside without consistent legal explanations. It surely contributes to the lack of awareness of French judges regarding EU PIL instruments in procedural and cooperation matters.

Some scholars have mentioned an implicit reference to recital 8 of the Regulation, which lays down that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. Recital 8 should provide for a kind of subsidiarity of the European regime on cross-border transmission of documents, vis-à-vis national rules.

However, the European Court of Justice had the opportunity to clarify the scope of this recital in Adler (C-325/11). The ECJ ruled that

from a systematic interpretation of the regulation […] [it] provides for only two circumstances in which the service of a judicial document between Member States falls outside its scope, namely (i) where the permanent or habitual residence of the addressee is unknown and (ii) where that person has appointed an authorised representative in the Member State where the judicial proceedings are taking place (para 24).

In order to support a uniform application of the regulation, the circumstances in which a judicial document has to be served in another Member State should not be conducted by reference to the national law of the Member State in which the proceedings take place (see paras 26-27). This is, however, the core reasoning of the French Supreme Court.

When should it be considered that the litigant (here the London-based company) has appointed an “authorised representative”? Should the manager of the branch of the company be considered a “representative” within the meaning of the Service of documents Regulation? In the end, the French Supreme Court could have referred a question to the Court of Justice. Its ruling takes the opposite direction.

At least, it shows that a legal explanation from the French Supreme Court of its solution would have not been superfluous.

On the contrary, when explaining why French PIL rules are not the relevant legal basis to control the validity of the prorogation, the French Supreme Court  takes a true educational approach towards  the lower courts (see already Civ. First Chamber, 23 January 2008, no. 06-21.898 under Article 23 of Brussels I regulation). The validity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction had to be assessed under Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, applicable to prorogations of jurisdiction in favour of the national Court of an EU Member State (including the UK at the time of the dispute) in civil and commercial matters.

Why did the lower courts did not apply EU PIL? Quite ironically, the absence of French PIL codification can be an explanation for the faulty reasoning of the lower courts. It should be recalled that the French rules of international jurisdiction do not formally exist. They are the result of an extension of the domestic territorial jurisdiction rules into international disputes (see Civ. First Civil Chamber, 30 October 1962, Scheffel). This could explain why the lower courts applied the French Civil Procedural Code, mixing up domestic and international disputes, and the related applicable procedural rules.

Such a basic legal mistake grounded on the oversight of EU PIL requires all the attention of the French expert group on French PIL codification recently created by the French Ministry of Justice. A future Code should probably recall that the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction in a cross-border relationship has to be assessed pursuant supra-national sources, in particular the 2005 Hague Convention and the Brussels I bis Regulation and, by default only, pursuant national PIL rules. Clarity regarding multilevel sources in PIL (and their articulation) is crucial for operational legal practice.

Last but not least, Brexit will add more complexity in such a case as it will require applying the 2005 Hague Convention instead of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The London-based company will have to be regarded as located in a third State which is a Contracting Party to the Convention (Article 26(6) of the 2005 Hague Convention).

French courts, get ready!

In a judgment of 3 June 2020, the Paris Court of Appeal ruled that sanctions issued by the Security Council of the United Nations (UN) or by the European Union (EU) are international mandatory rules which define French public policy. As a result, the court ruled that, in principle, an arbitral award violating such sanctions could be set aside by a French court.

In contrast, the court ruled that unilateral sanctions issued by the United States of America do not constitute French public policy. As French authorities have expressed their hostility against them, US sanctions obviously cannot be regarded as defining the most important values of the French state. An arbitral award failing to take them into consideration might not, therefore, be challenged before French courts.

The case was concerned with a gas storage contract to be performed in Yort-E-Shah, Iran. The initial contract was concluded in 2002 between an Iranian and a French company.  A number of letters of credit had been issued by various banks to guarantee the  performance of the contract. In 2008, a dispute arose between the parties. The Iranian party alleged various contractual breaches, terminated the contract and called the guarantees. The French party initiated proceedings before French courts to enjoin the banks from paying under the letters of credit, which were eventually dismissed (see the judgment of the French Supreme Court here).

The French party then initiated arbitration proceedings before an ICC tribunal in Paris arguing that the termination of the contract was illegal. The Iranian party made counterclaims. The tribunal allowed claims from both parties and, after setting them off, ultimately found in favour of the Iranian company.

The French company then initiated proceedings before French courts, arguing inter alia that the award was contrary to French public policy for failing to take into account applicable sanctions and should thus be set aside.

The first argument was that the arbitral tribunal had failed to apply UN Resolutions no 1737 of 23 December 2006, no 1747 of 24 March 2007 and no 1803 du 3 mars 2008. The Iranian party challenged the relevance of the UN resolutions for defining French public policy, arguing that UN resolutions are not directly applicable in France, were not implemented in the French legal order, and thus could not be considered as defining French public policy.

The court recognised that the UN resolutions were not directly applicable in France, and that they could not be characterised as French international mandatory rules. However, the court held that they were either foreign international mandatory rules, or  “genuinely international mandatory rules”. The court concluded by adding that, in any case, the objectives pursued by the UN, peace and international security, were essential values to the French state. In principle, therefore, arbitral awards violating UN sanctions would not comport with French public policy and could be set aside on this ground.

This wealth of reasons might reveal that none of them was particularly convincing.

The most unconvincing argument was certainly to distinguish between foreign international mandatory rules and mandatory rules of the forum. The purpose of the distinction is to grant discretion to courts to apply mandatory rules protecting the interests of foreign states. It seems hard, and pretty artifical, to establish a link between UN sanctions and certain states, but not others. A formalistic way of doing this would be to argue that UN sanctions would be non foreign mandatory rules only in the states which have not implemented them. Is that what the court means? If so, it should tell which foreign implementing legislation it is actually considering. And what if UN sanctions are not directly applicable in the vast majority of states? Are they foreign to everybody?

The concept of “genuinely international” mandatory rules (lois de police réellement internationales) is a reference to the idea that while arbitrators have no forum, and cannot be considered as more specifically bound by the mandatory rules of any given state, they should consider that they are the guardians of a genuinely international public policy composed of norms recognised as being of the utmost importance at a global level. The doctrine of “genuinely international public policy” (ordre public réellement international), or “genuinely international mandatory rules”, is a correction of the consequences of the delocalisation of arbitration promoted by the French law of arbitration. The reference to this doctrine in the context of court proceedings, however, raises a number of issues. First, the court implies that arbitral tribunals should be compelled to apply a rule which is not a French international mandatory rule, and that French courts would thus have no obligation to apply if the case was litigated in France. Second, while one can conceive that arbitrators do not have a forum and are thus not bound by the international mandatory rules of the seat of the arbitration, a French court does have a forum, and should thus care about French public policy.

Finally, the court explained that UN resolutions should be considered as defining French public policy because of the importance of the purpose that they served. The court ruled:

the aforementioned resolutions, in so far as they are intended to contribute to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, embody rules and values whose disregard must be considered to be incompatible with the French legal system and which therefore fall within the French concept of international public policy

International mandatory rules are defined by the importance of the purpose that they serve, so establishing the purpose of UN Resolutions in this context was no doubt important. Yet, one wonders whether the sole purpose of norms could make them international mandatory provisions irrespective of their enforceability in the relevant legal order.

The characterisation of EU sanctions contained in Regulations (EC) no 423/2007, (EU) no 961/2010 (EU) no 267/2012 was much simpler. EU regulations are directly applicable in all Member states. The court thus found that these regulations are French international mandatory rules and, because they contribute to the maintenance or restoration of international peace and security, also define French international public policy. In this context, the reference to the purpose of EU Regulations was aimed at distinguishing those EU regulations which would qualify as international mandatory provisions and those which would not.

Finally, the court turned to US sanctions and ruled that they did not define French public policy. The court insisted that its role was to assess French public policy. For this purpose, it was highly relevant that the French state had repeatedly expressed through members of its government its opposition to the policy of the US to use unilateral sanctions, calling them unjustifiable and violations of international law. French authorities were working with other Member States to reinforce the economic sovereignty of the EU, in particular by reflecting on extending the scope of the EU blocking regulation (and possibly the French blocking statute). Thus, US sanctions clearly did not define French public policy

After elaborating quite extensively on the characterization of international sanctions as international mandatory rules, the court found that neither the UN Resolutions, nor the EU Regulations applied in the particular case, and that there had not been any actual violation of French public policy. It seems clear, therefore, that the court wanted to signal its doctrine and clarify that, while it would expect arbitrators to take into account UN and EU sanctions, it would participate in the effort of the French state to resist US unilateralism in this respect.

Serena Forlati (University of Ferrara) and Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan) are the editors of a collection of essays titled Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? which has been just published by Brill.

Enabling the victims of international crimes to obtain reparation is crucial to fighting impunity. In Universal Civil Jurisdiction – Which Way Forward? experts of public and private international law discuss one of the key challenges that victims face, namely access to justice. Civil courts in the country where the crime was committed may be biased, or otherwise unwilling or unable to hear the case. Are the courts of other countries permitted, or required, to rule on the victim’s claim? Trends at the international and the domestic level after the Naït-Liman judgment of the European Court of Human Rights offer a nuanced answer, suggesting that civil jurisdiction is not only concerned with sovereignty, but is also a tool for the governance of global problems.

Opened by a foreword by Giorgio Gaja (University of Florence, Judge at the International Court of Justice), the book features contributions by the editors themselves as well as by Beatrice I. Bonafè (University of Rome La Sapienza), Malgosia Fitzmaurice (Queen Mary University), Patrick Kinsch (University of Luxembourg), Mariangela La Manna (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, Milan), Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (University of Macerata), Lucas Roorda and Cedric Ryngaert (both University of Utrecht), and Andrea Saccucci (University of Campania).

See here for more information, including the full table of contents.

Stephen Park (University of Connecticut School of Business) and Tim Samples (University of Georgia School of Business) have posted Distrust, Disorder, and the New Governance of Sovereign Debt on SSRN.

The unique characteristics of sovereign debt finance provide fertile ground for opportunistic behavior and intractable disputes. Lacking reliable contractual enforcement mechanisms and formal bankruptcy procedures, the sovereign debt restructuring process is hampered by fragmentation, costly standoffs, and unpredictable outcomes. The result is a non-system of ad hoc, decentralized negotiations and litigation that some fear is perpetually at risk of falling apart. To address these concerns, recent years have seen renewed efforts to fix sovereign debt through soft law, public-private collaboration, and informal governance mechanisms, which this Article collectively refers to as sovereign debt governance. This Article focuses on one of the most prominent proposed reforms in sovereign debt governance: the use of creditor committees to facilitate engagement between a sovereign debtor and its private external creditors. Notwithstanding the uniqueness of sovereign debt in international law and financial regulation, we explain how the debtor-creditor relationship reflects a fundamental governance challenge amidst individual distrust and collective disorder. This suggests that the sovereign debt restructuring process can be improved by reforming the procedural rules and institutional frameworks that govern debtor-creditor engagement. To assess this proposition, we examine the use of creditor committees in the current era of sovereign debt, focusing on factors that influence the conduct of debtors and their creditors vis-à-vis each other. Drawing on our observations, we consider the potential value and limitations of creditor committees in the context of sovereign debt governance.

The paper is forthcoming in the Harvard International Law Journal.

The third issue of the Journal du Droit International for 2020 includes three articles concerned with private international law and several case notes.

In the first article, Caroline Devaux (University of Nantes) offers an analysis of the 2018 Singapore Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation (Entrée en vigueur de la Convention de Singapour : de nouveaux horizons pour la médiation commerciale internationale). The English abstract reads:

The United Nations Convention on International Settlement Agreements Resulting from Mediation was adopted on 20 December 2018 under the auspices of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL) and will enter into force on 12 September 2020. By establishing an international mechanism for the recognition and enforcement of mediated settlement agreements, the Singapore Convention aims to encourage the use of international commercial mediation in the same way that the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards had facilitated the growth of international commercial arbitration. If successful, the Singapore Convention could transform dispute settlement in the field of international trade.

In the second article, Etienne Thomas discusses the procedure for the return of the child under the Brussels 2 ter Regulation (La procédure de retour de l’enfant à l’aune du règlement Bruxelles 2 ter).

On the 25th of June 2019, the Council of the European Union adopted the regulation Brussels 2 ter, amending substantially the regulation Brussels 2 bis. Like its predecessor, regulation Brussels 2 ter complements, within the European Union, the regime of The Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction. It also rectifies some dysfunctions attributed to regulation Brussels 2 bis while restoring balance in the relations between the judge of the Member state of origin of the child and the judge of the Member state of execution of the return decision. Since the end of the 1990s, the Council used its best endeavours to deepen the cooperation between Member states in child abduction cases. However, the number of cases is still high. In this regard, the central issue remains, i.e. the end of judicial imbroglios, in the obvious interest of the child.

Finally, Elodie Kleider explores certain issues related to the divorce of French residents working in Switzerland (Travailler en Suisse et divorcer en France : le partage du deuxième pilier, compétence exclusive des juridictions suisses).

Since the revision of 19 June 2015 came into force, Swiss courts have exclusive jurisdiction in divorce cases, to rule upon claims for the allocation of occupational pension against Swiss pension funds (2E pillar) and will apply Swiss law. As a result, French decrees that resolved the issue by taking those assets into account when calculating the compensatory allowance will not be recognized in Switzerland anymore.

The full table of contents is available here.

This post was written by Giesela Rühl, LL.M. (Berkeley), Humboldt-University of Berlin.

The protection of human rights in global supply chains has been high on the agenda of national legislatures for a number of years. Most recently, also the European Union has joined the bandwagon. After Commissioner for Justice Didier Reynders announced plans to prepare a European human rights to due diligence instrument in April 2020, the JURI Committee of the European Parliament has now published a Draft Report on corporate due diligence and corporate accountability. The Report contains a motion for a European Parliament Resolution and a Proposal for a Directive which will, if adopted, require European companies – and companies operating in Europe – to undertake broad mandatory human rights due diligence along the entire supply chain. Violations will result, among others, in a right of victims to claim damages.

The proposed Directive is remarkable because it amounts to the first attempt of the European legislature to establish cross-sectoral mandatory human rights due diligence obligations coupled with a mandatory civil liability regime. However, from a private international law perspective the Draft Report attracts attention because it also contains proposals to change the Brussels I bis Regulation and the Rome II Regulation. In this post I will briefly discuss – and criticize – the proposed changes to the Rome II Regulation. For a discussion of the changes to the Brussels I bis Regulation I refer to Geert Van Calster’s thoughts on GAVC.

The proposed change to the Rome II Regulation envisions the introduction of a new Article 6a entitled “Business-related human rights claims”. Clearly modelled on Article 7 Rome II Regulation relating to environmental damage the proposal allows victims of human rights violations to choose the applicable law. However, unlike Article 7 Rome II Regulation, which limits the choice to the law of the place of injury and the law of the place of action, the proposed Article 6a allows victims of human rights violations to choose between potentially four different laws, namely

1) the law of the country in which the damage occurred, i.e. the law of the place of injury,

2) the law of the country in which the event giving rise to damage occurred, i.e. the law of the place of action,

3) the law of the country in which the parent company has its domicile or, where the parent company does not have a domicile in a Member State,

4) the law of the country where the parent company operates.

The rationale behind the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation is clear: The JURI Committee tries to make sure that the substantive provisions of the proposed Directive will actually apply – and not fall prey to Article 4(1) Rome II Regulation which, in typical supply chain cases, leads to application of the law of the host state in the Global South and, hence, non-EU law. By allowing victims to choose the applicable law, notably the law of the (European) parent company the JURI Committee takes up recommendations that have been made in the literature over the past years.

However, a right to choose the applicable law ex post – while certainly good for victims – is conceptually ill-conceived because it results in legal uncertainty for all companies that try to find out ex ante what their obligations are. Provisions like the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation, therefore, fundamentally impair the deterrence function of tort law and increase compliance costs for companies because they have to adjust their behaviour to four – potentially – different laws to avoid liability. It is for this reason that choice of law rules that allow one party to unilaterally choose the applicable law ex post have largely (even though not completely) fallen out of favour.

The proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation, however, does not only fail to convince conceptually. It also fails to convince as regards to the purpose that it seeks to achieve. In fact, there are much better ways to ensure that European standards apply in supply chain cases. The most obvious way is to simply adopt the envisioned European instrument in the form of a Regulation. Its provisions would then have to be applied as international uniform law by all Member State courts – irrespective of the provisions of the Rome II Regulation. However, even if the European legislature prefers to adopt a European instrument in the form of a Directive – for political or competence reasons –, no change of the Rome II Regulation is necessary to ensure that it is applied throughout Europe. In fact, its provisions can simply be classified as overriding mandatory provisions in the meaning of Article 16 Rome II Regulation. The national provisions implementing the Directive will then apply irrespective of the otherwise applicable law.

In the light of the above, application of European human rights due diligence standards can be ensured without amending the Rome II Regulation. It is, therefore, recommended that the JURI Committee rethinks – and then abandons – the proposed Article 6a Rome II Regulation.

The members of the European Association of Private International Law have recently received, by e-mail, the first issue of the Association’s Newsletter.

The issue can now be accessed by all readers of this blog here.

It comes with updates on the EAPIL conference in Aarhus, which is scheduled to take place on 27, 28 and 29 May 2020, and with news on the activities of the Association, notably the creation of a Working Group on the Feasibility of a European Private International Law Act, chaired by Thomas Kadner Graziano, and the establishment of the Young EU Private International Law Research Network, co-chaired by Martina Melcher and Tamás Szabados.

The Newsletter also provides a presentation of four more Working Groups whose creation has recently been proposed: a Working Group on Interests in European private international law, led by Caroline Kleiner; one on The law applicable to the validity of choice of court agreements, coordinated by Laurence Usunier and Eva Lein; one on Liberalizing the cross-border taking of evidence within the EU, proposed by Gilles Cuniberti; and one on A future European Regulation on international property law, headed by Eva-Maria Kieninger.

The members of the Association are warmly encouraged to contribute to the above activities, or launch new ones!

One of the articles in the Newsletter is about this blog. The blog is seeking new permanent editors and a social media manager. Interested EAPIL members are invited to get in touch with Pietro Franzina at pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.

Finally, the Newsletter provides an account of the current status of the EAPIL membership, less than one year after its creation. The Association has now 216 members, coming from 40 countries around the world.

This issue’s guest editorial is by Patrick Kinsch, Secretary General of GEDIP (Groupe européen de droit international privé), and is titled Fraternal greetings from a fellow association of European private international law.

On few occasions Polish tax authorities made references to the EU Succession Regulation and applied foreign law designated by its provisions, even though revenue and other administrative matters are explicitly excluded from its scope. This post presents shortly the inheritance taxation rules in Poland, explains why tax authorities felt the need to look into foreign succession laws for tax purposes and how the content of foreign law was ascertained.

The EU Succession Regulations states in its Article 1(1) that it does not apply to revenue, customs or administrative matters. Recital 10 makes reference to taxes in particular. It explains that it is for national law to determine how taxes are calculated and paid. The question is how to proceed if national tax law makes a direct reference to succession law concepts.

It might be reminded that inheritance taxes in Member States were once subject to an EU-sponsored study (which might be consulted here).

Inheritance taxation in Poland is regulated by a separate statute (available here – in Polish only). It provides that the acquisition of goods located in Poland and rights exercised in Poland by an individual as a result of inter alia succession is subject to taxation. Acquisition of goods located abroad or rights exercised abroad is subject to taxation, provided that at the moment of opening of the succession the beneficiary was a Polish national or had habitual residence in Poland. The acquisition of ownership of movable property located in Poland or rights exercised in Poland is not subject to taxation, provided that neither the beneficiary, nor deceased were Polish nationals and had habitual residence in Poland.

There are numerous exemptions from inheritance tax, including the one for the closest family members. The beneficiary is the taxpayer. The tax point arises at the moment of the acceptance of the succession. If the acquisition was not reported to tax authorities the tax point (re)arises at the moment when a document in writing is produced. If it is a court decision the tax point arises at the moment the decision becomes final. The tax base is the net worth of the estate calculated in the prescribed manner. The tax due depends on the degree of affinity or kinship between the deceased and beneficiary and varies between 3% to 20% of the tax base exceeding certain thresholds. Taxpayers are obliged to file a tax return, based on which tax authorities issue a decision indicating tax to be paid.

As mentioned above, the tax point with respect to succession arises at the moment of its acceptance. This clearly refers to the acceptance of the succession, an institution known in the substantive succession law regulated by the Polish Civil Code (here). It states that an heir acquires the estate at the moment of the opening of the succession. Nevertheless, the heir may accept the estate without limitation of liability for debts, with limitation of that liability or may renounce the succession. The time limit for such statement is six months counting from the moment when an hair have learned about his/her title of acquisition.

It is simple to indicate a tax point for inheritance taxation in a purely domestic case. However, inheritance taxation comes into play also in cases which are less intensively connected to Poland. For example, acquisition of an immovable property located in Poland is taxed, even if both the deceased and the beneficiary are foreign nationals with habitual residence abroad. In those cases, in accordance with the EU Succession Regulation, succession is governed by foreign law. The doubt as to the tax point might occur in instances when lex successionis does not know the concept of an acceptance of succession.

While assessing the tax point tax authorities stated that the concept of an acceptance of succession used for tax purposes must take into account the law applicable to civil law aspects of the particular case. This law should be designated in accordance with the EU Succession Regulation.

In the recent tax ruling of 27 August 2020 (signature: 0111-KDIB2-3.4015.112.2020.1.AD) the tax authority analysed English law (as the deceased was habitually resident in the UK). It was explained that in the UK succession case is dealt with differently than in Poland. It is an appointed executor, who is responsible for assessing the value of the estate, payment of debts and payment of inheritance taxes in the UK. The executor is responsible also for sending documents to the probate court. Once the decision of the probate court is delivered, the estate might be transferred to heirs. As a result a final decision of the probate court may be perceived as an equivalent to the acceptance of succession. In an earlier tax ruling of 31 December 2019 (signature: 0111-KDIB4.4015.114.2019.2.MD) the tax authority analysed US succession procedure and also stated that the decision of the court is conclusive for tax purposes in Poland.

Please note that the above are not decisions in particular tax proceedings, but tax rulings, which only interpret the law on the taxpayer’s application and are issued based on information and explanations provided by the taxpayer. Hence, while issuing a tax rulings tax authorities are not establishing the content of foreign law. Tax rulings may be found by their signatures in the public database (accessible here – in Polish only).

In the tax proceeding concerning succession governed by Australian law tax authorities went even further and lined the tax point to the actual transfer of funds from Australia to Poland. The taxpayer was arguing that the tax point have arisen earlier, at the moment of the opening of succession (as the foreign exchange rate used for calculating tax due was more favourable at that time). The decision resulted in a dispute and the tax decision was appealed to the administrative court. The court in its judgement of 26 June 2018 (signature: I SA/Wr 164/18; it may be found by its signature in the public database here – in Polish) set aside the tax decision due to procedural faults, in particular when it comes to ascertainment of the content of foreign law.

The court stated that it is not enough that the tax authorities have asked Polish Consulate in Sidney for information on Australian law and that the decision has indicated provisions of the South Australia Administration and Probate Act 1919 as the basis for conclusions. The court suggested that indeed the tax point arose earlier than at the moment of the bank transfer, but in order to indicate this moment a careful analysis of Australian succession law must be made. For this purpose tax authorities should ask Ministry of Finance for guidance, which might in turn, within the framework of legal aid procedure, contact Australian tax authorities. Australian succession law should be applied as it would be applied by Australian tax authorities in similar cases. Also an expert witness may be appointed.

The above shows the relevance of private international law for the work of administrative authorities, influence of lex successions designated by the EU Succession Regulation on tax matters, but also reveals that tax authorities are not necessarily competent to proceed with the ascertainment of the content of foreign law.

Hélène Péroz (University of Nantes) has edited a commentary of Regulation (EU) 2016/1191 of 6 July 2016 on promoting the free movement of citizens by simplifying the requirements for presenting certain public documents in the European Union, published by Bruylant (La circulation européenne des actes publics – Premier commentaire du Règlement 2016/1191 du 6 juillet 2016).

More generally, the book addresses the different issues arising from the international circulation of public documents in Europe, both from a practical and an academic perspective.

The book’s table of contents can be found here. See here for further information.

No decisions on PIL matters will be taken this month. However, a couple of opinions will be published, and a hearing will be held.

AG’s Spuznar opinion on C–469/19, All in One Star, will be delivered on 14 October 2020. The request from the German Bundesgerichtshof was lodged on 19 June 2019.

The questions submitted are as follows:

1. Does Article 30 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 [relating to certain aspects of company law] preclude a national provision under which the indication of the amount of share capital or a comparable capital value is required for a branch of a limited liability company with registered office in another Member State to be entered in the commercial register?

2.a Does Article 30 of Directive (EU) 2017/1132 preclude a national provision under which, when applying for a branch of a limited liability company with registered office in another Member State to be entered in the commercial register, the managing director of the company has to provide an assurance that there is no barrier to his personal appointment under national law in the form of a prohibition, ordered by a court or public authority, on practising his profession or trade, corresponding in whole or in part with the object of the company, or in the form of a final conviction for certain criminal offences and that, in this respect, he has been instructed of his unrestricted duty to provide information to the court by a notary, a representative of a comparable legal advisory profession or a consular officer?

2.b If Question 2.a is answered in the negative: Do Articles 49 and 54 TFEU preclude a national provision under which the managing director of the company has to provide such an assurance when applying for a branch of a limited liability company with registered office in another Member State to be entered in the commercial register?

On the same day, the hearing in C-729/19 Department of Justice for Northern Ireland will take place. The issue relates the registration and enforcement in Northern Ireland of a maintenance order made by a Polish court before Poland’s accession to the EU pursuant to Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008. The case has been allocated to the 3rd Chamber (the one who determined as well C-41/19 and C-540/19, with Ms. Rossi as reporting judge), and to AG Hogan.

On 29 October, AG Saugmandsgaard Øe will deliver his opinion in C-804/19 , Markt24. Here, the questions come from the Landesgericht Salzburg (Austria), and are not short:

1. Is Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 applicable to an employment relationship in which, although an employment contract was entered into in Austria for the performance of work in Germany, the female employee, who remained in Austria and was prepared for several months to work, did not perform any work?

In the event that the first question is answered in the affirmative:

2. Is Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply a national provision which enables an employee to bring an action in the place where she was resident during the employment relationship or at the time when the employment relationship ended (thus facilitating the process of bringing an action), as is the case with Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the Arbeits- und Sozialgerichtsgesetz (Law on the labour and social courts; ‘the ASGG’)?
3. Is Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that it is possible to apply a national provision which enables an employee to bring an action in the place where the remuneration is to be paid or was to be paid upon termination of his employment relationship (thus facilitating the process of bringing an action), as is the case with Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the ASGG?

In the event that Questions 2 and 3 are answered in the negative:

4.1. Is Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an employment relationship in which the female employee has not performed any work, the action must be brought in the Member State in which the employee remained prepared to work?

4.2. Is Article 21 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 to be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of an employment relationship in which the female employee has not performed any work, the action must be brought in the Member State in which the employment contract was initiated and entered into, even if the performance of work in another Member State had been agreed or envisaged in that employment contract?

In the event that the first question is answered in the negative:

5. Is Article 7(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 applicable to an employment relationship in which, although an employment contract was entered into in Austria for the performance of work in Germany, the female employee, who remained in Austria and was prepared for several months to work, did not perform any work, if it is possible to apply a national provision which enables an employee to bring an action in the place where she was resident during the employment relationship or at the time when the employment relationship ended (thus facilitating the process of bringing an action), as is the case with Paragraph 4(1)(a) of the ASGG, or if it is possible to apply a national provision which enables an employee to bring an action in the place where the remuneration is to be paid or was to be paid upon termination of the employment relationship (thus facilitating the process of bringing an action), as is the case with Paragraph 4(1)(d) of the ASGG?
6. The proceedings are stayed pending the ruling the Court of Justice (Paragraph 90a of the Gerichtsorganisationsgesetz (Law on the organisation of the courts; ‘the GOG’).

The chamber in charge is the 5th, (Bonichot, Bay Larsen, Toader, Safjan, Jääskinen), with Mr. Safjan as reporting judge.

The members of the proposed EAPIL Working Group on International Property Law will host a webinar 20 October 2020, from 12:30 to 2 pm.

The webinar will illustrate the goals and agenda of the Working Group and provide EAPIL members with the possibility to join the discussion on a future European Regulation on International Property Law.

The webinar’s programme is as follows:

• Prof. Dr. Teun Struycken (Amsterdam/Utrecht): The Significance of International Property Law (case study)
• Ass. Prof. Dr. Teemu Juutilainen (Turku): The Impact of Free Movement of Goods and Services on International Property Law
• Prof. Dr. Gilles Cuniberti (Luxemburg): The Impact of the Acquis Communautaire on International Property Law
• Prof. Dr. Janeen M Carruthers (Glasgow): Global Measures for the Unification of Private International Rules pertaining to Property
• Prof. Dr. Eva-Maria Kieninger (Würzburg): The Way Ahead: Topics and Goals of the Working Group

The practical details for attending the webinar will be communicated soon on this blog.

Situations exist where a judicial document addressed to a person based abroad may be communicated to a lawyer representing that person in the forum State, instead of being served abroad on the addressee himself or herself. This usually applies to service occurring after the act instituting the proceedings has been served on the defendant in conformity with either the Service Regulation or the Hague Service Convention.

In fact, the described situation may also arise in the framework of proceedings brought by a foreign claimant against a defendant based in the forum. In this case, the defendant may reasonably presume that the lawyer signing the claim on behalf of the foreign litigant is eligible for receiving documents related to the case.

While the latter assumption would generally seem to be accurate, the admissibility of service on the lawyer  depends on the kind of documents that the latter is in fact allowed to receive on behalf of the client.

In 2019, the Greek Supreme Court issued an interesting ruling on the matter.

After longstanding business collaboration between a Greek company and a Finnish telecommunications giant, a decade of confrontation began in 2010. In a series of proceedings, the parties fought through all court instances.

The first stage was a successful application for a freezing order filed by the Finnish company. An actio pauliana was filed in parallel by the same company, which was dismissed by the Athens Court of First Instance. The appeal lodged by the Finnish company, instead was successful. The losing party filed cassation against the Athens Court of Appeal ruling.

Almost at the same time, the Greek company lodged an application to reverse the freezing order, which was filed to the Supreme Court, in accordance with domestic Civil Procedure Rules (Article 698 of the Code of Civil Procedure).

As in previous stages of the litigation, the document was served on the lawyer representing the Finnish company. The latter did not appear in the hearing.

The Supreme Court ruled that the application was inadmissible because it was not served on a lawyer instructed by the foreign company to accept service on its behalf at a business address within the jurisdiction [Supreme Court Nr. 470/2019, unreported]. The reasoning of the court may be summarised as follows:

• Proper indirect service (in the case at hand, service to a lawyer representing a party), must be demonstrated by the party instructing the process server to deliver the document in this fashion.
• Pursuant to Greek law, a foreign party may appoint a representative ad litem in the following ways: by a declaration addressed to the clerks of the Athens Court of First Instance; by a specific clause in a contract; by appointing a lawyer as a representative ad litem pursuant to Article 96 of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure [i.e. orally before the court and prior to the hearing, or in written by means of a private power of attorney, upon the condition that the signature has been certified by a public authority or another attorney at law].
• Pursuant to Article 143(4) of the Code of Civil Procedure, all documents addressed to a foreign party must be served on the representative ad litem, if properly appointed, provided they fall within the set of cases covered by the power of attorney for the purpose of service.
• The Supreme Court found, however, that the application by the appellant to reverse the freezing order before the Court itself was not related to the set of cases for which the lawyer of the Finnish company was appointed. In particular, the lawyer’s appointment concerned the main dispute (which reached the Supreme Court), not the provisional measures (freezing order).
• Therefore, service of the application to reverse the freezing order to the lawyer who received the writ on behalf of the Finnish company was inadmissible.
• The above result is free of doubt, notwithstanding the same lawyer acted and received documents on behalf of the Finnish company in a number of occasions, such as: representation before the Athens Court of First Instance and Court of Appeal; representation before the court which issued the freezing order; filing on behalf of the Finnish company of an application for declaring the Greek company insolvent, and representing the same party before court in the bankruptcy proceedings.

Almost ten years after the start of litigation, and following a number of hearings where the Finnish company was represented by the same lawyer, the Supreme Court considered that the latter had no powers of representation in a case initiated by his own application, followed by his appearance before the court, and his instruction to serve the freezing order to the losing party.

The ruling of the Supreme Court rests upon a formalistic construction of the law; contradicts to the factual situation of the dispute; causes additional costs to the applicant with no apparent reason; endangers the right to judicial protection, given that service from Greece to Finland is not business as usual.

Last but not least, the Supreme Court did not utter a word about the actual applicable rules, i.e those in the Service Regulation. It failed to take into account Recital 8 of the Preamble and the pertinent case law of the CJEU. Finally, it missed the chance to address the matter to the European Court of Justice, by filing a preliminary request for an issue which continues to puzzle academia and practice alike.

The 2021 winter course of the Hague Academy of International Law will be held online from 11 to 29 January 2021.

One remarkable feature of the Academy’s winter courses is that they jointly cover topics belonging (or traditionally labelled as belonging) to both public and private international law.

The General Course will be delivered by Maurice Kamto under the title International Law and Normative Polycentrism.

Special courses include: Evidence in International Adjudication by Chester Brown, The Protection of Religious Cultural Property in Public and Private International Law by José Angelo Estrella Faria, and The Regulation of the Internet by Inger Österdahl.

The winter course’s full programme is available here.

Registration will open on 8 October 2020. Further information is available on the Academy website.

On 14 August 2020, the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law of the MPI Luxembourg met online with a special invitee, Steven Gee QC, joining actually from Hong Kong, where he was staying at the time.

Mr. Gee is the author of a treatise on, and entitled, Commercial Injunctions (Sweet & Maxwell, last edition 2016, a new updated one in the making). The book is mainly about UK law but at the end it addresses as well other jurisdictions. This is why Mr. Gee got in touch with the MPI (Prof. Burkhard Hess and Dr. Vincent Richard will contribute to the European part of the next edition of Commercial Injunctions), and how he ended up sharing with the researchers and MPI guests a two-hours talk on injunctions.

I thought his presentation and the following debate had been recorded but, unfortunately, it had not. Therefore, I cannot accurately report on the contents. What I can do, though, is to explain here an idea I had already in mind and was, to some extent, confirmed by Mr. Gee during the discussion.

It has to do with antisuit injunctions and the preliminary reference sent to the Court of Justice last December by the Court of Appeal (England & Wales), on the interpretation of Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (C-946/19). At the time I am writing these lines a settlement has been reached between the litigants in the main proceedings, and the request consequently withdrawn. A fact which strengthens my dismayed suspicion that the whole thing was a practical joke on the Court of Justice (but not only). Of course, I know I am exaggerating and, regarding the intentions of the referring court, wrong. This notwithstanding: a request relating to antisuit injunctions, i.e., to one of the most distinctive institutions of the common law tradition, already firmly rejected by the Court of Justice in ad intra situations; asking whether the injunction could (rather: had to) be mandatorily (no discretion!) granted on the basis of a crucial provision of a pivotal EU instrument [article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation], in ad extra situations (an invitation to indulge in “eurocentrism”?); sent to the Court of Justice barely one month before Brexit (and twelve months away from the end of the transitional period)? Some eyebrows have surely gone up.

The doubts of the national court regarding Article 4(1) of the Regulation read as follow:

whether the true effect of the Article is to give a right to every defendant who is domiciled in a Member State to be sued exclusively in the State of their domicile in all but the slender circumstances where that outcome is specifically excluded or some other outcome is permitted by the Judgments Regulation itself.

As a matter of fact, the Court of Appeal looked rather keen on answering in the affirmative [at 50]: ‘we acknowledge that [the antisuit injunction applicant’s] interpretation of the meaning and effect of Article 4(1) is a possible interpretation’.

The actual ground for referring the question to the Court of Justice had rather to do with the consequences of spousing such view [id. loc.]: ‘[…] but it is not one [interpretation] that we would wish to adopt in the present case unless required to do so’. Should Article 4(1) create a directly enforceable right, the Court of Appeal feared its breach would automatically lead to an antisuit injunction [id. loc.]: ‘[an]  extreme result[s] that would not be contemplated by an application of domestic law’.

In the case at hand, the Court of Appeal had already confirmed the first instance determinations in the sense that previous national case law on employment contracts, according to which Article 20(1) of the Brussels I Regulation and Article 22(1) of the Brussel I bis Regulation create a right protecting the employee against being sued in a third State by his employer, was not binding on it.

My experience with English practitioners and academics is that they do have a good knowledge and understanding of EU law. That Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation is not meant to confer an individual right is something the referring court could have easily concluded itself, without asking Luxembourg.

We – scholars- tend to be thorough and go to the bottom of the arguments: legislative intention based on history (not just the very illustrative Jenard and Schlosser Reports, but, here, also the rich publication of GAL Droz on the Brussels Convention, and all those he quotes); text; system; object and purpose of the provision; legal comparison. But for the sitting judges to decide on the dispute at stake, a look at Article 4(1) in a language other than English, coupled with a comparison between the rationale of the provisions on employment contracts and of Article 4(1), should have been enough if they wanted to move forward keeping the reasoning sober.

On the occasion of the MPI’s meeting mentioned above, Mr. Gee’s stressed a factor of the proceedings before the Court of Appeal that may help understanding the situation; he highlighted the asymmetry between the parties to the dispute. Throughout the proceedings before the Judge, both parties had been represented by solicitors and by leading and junior counsel. Before the Court of Appeal it remained so regarding the antisuit injunction’s applicant, but not the defendant, who did neither attend nor was represented, due to, allegedly, financial inability. The Court had only the written submissions previously made by his legal team to resist the antisuit injunction. They may have been enough to convince the first instance Judge not to grant the injunction; but before the Court of Appeal, and against the (slightly) more sophisticated (and, by all means, radical) submissions of Mr Cohen QC on behalf of the applicant at the hearing, he probably needed to do better.

As indicated, the case will no longer keep the Court of Justice busy. My (strictly) personal view remains that the preliminary reference was a practical joke: on the Court of Justice, and on second thought also on the Court of Appeal. Both seem to have been strategically used by one of the litigants.

In any event, I expect academics to study further the questions referred in C-946/19. For sure, I do not see any individual right “hidden” in Article 4(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. But, contrary to some scholars’ views (A. Dickinson, C.M. Clarkson and J. Hill, following A. Briggs) I believe other provisions in the Regulation may be interpreted in that way: not because they were conceived with the purpose of conferring directly enforceable rights upon persons domiciled in a Member State, but because such understanding of the jurisdictional grounds would help ensuring that specific substantive EU law is effective also extraterritorially, where needed.

(NoA: MPI Department I “Referentenrunde” have been resumed on the usual weekly basis every Wednesday via Zoom. A series of lectures is foreseen for the fall; specific dates will be announced in due time through the MPI website. Events are open to all having an interest. Contact person: michalis.spyropoulos@mpi.lu)

What is ‘habitual residence’ for the purposes of the EU regulations on family matters (succession included)? The questions, coupled with the one on how many habitual residences a person may have for the same purposes, is a known source of headaches for the national courts. In the last months, several requests for a preliminary ruling on the issue have been filed with the CJEU originating from different Member States, as if the judges had got into an agreement to ‘corner’ the Court in Luxembourg to try and
get once and for all (?) a helpful answer.

In the E.E. case (C-80/19, judgment of 16 July 2020), the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) asked the CJEU whether, for the purposes of Regulation No 650/2012 (the Succession Regulation), the habitual residence of the deceased can only be one or, on the contrary, a number of places of habitual residence in different States would be admissible. The referring court acknowledged the former to be the likely correct answer, but added ‘that position is not, however, expressly prescribed and there is [therefore] a need for greater clarity and explanation from the Court of Justice in that context’. It was indeed correct. Like the AG, the CJEU elaborated on how to the ‘one and only’ deceased’s habitual residence is to be determined, finding support in the recitals of the Regulation. The decision is reported and commented by Carlos Santaló in this blog.

Some days before the E.E. decision, on 30 June 2020, a request on the meaning of ‘habitual residence’ was lodged (C-289/20, IB), this time in relation to Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis) . The question, from the Paris Court of Appeal, reads as follows: ‘Where, as in the present case, it is apparent from the factual circumstances that one of the spouses divides his time between two Member States, is it permissible to conclude, in accordance with and for the purposes of the application of Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003, that he or she is habitually resident in two Member States, such that, if the conditions listed in that article are met in two Member States, the courts of those two States have equal jurisdiction to rule on the divorce?’

The request is not yet available at curia.eu in a language other than French. A short summary would be that the spouses have different views on whether France is the habitual residence of IB (the husband); much of the discussion revolves around his intention to reside there. In this regard, IB explains that he has been carrying out his professional activities in France since 2010 and in a stable and sustainable manner since 15 May 2017; that he moved to Paris, in an apartment belonging to his father; that he leads a social life there, and that it is his wife’s refusal to come and live in France, although she stays there regularly, in the Parisian apartment or in a vacation home acquired in 2017, which led them to lead a parallel daily life. The wife (FA) replies that it was never agreed or envisaged that the family would settle in France; the family’s habitual residence was in Ireland, where the children were brought up; the husband never changed his residence in Ireland but only the address of his place of work. FA argues that the fact that IB has worked and received his income in France for more than six months is insufficient to characterize his habitual residence within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003, whereas he has continued to come to Ireland, to the family home, until the end of 2018; he continued to lead the same life there; he previously lived there and he consulted a lawyer in Ireland when the spouses considered, from September 2018, to divorce.

On 15 September 15 2020, the Audiencia Provincial (Court of Appeal) of Barcelona sent a request for a preliminary reference to the CJEU, also on the notion of ‘habitual residence’ of adults in Regulation No 2201/2003; the request is nonetheless broader, encompassing as well the Maintenance Regulation, and further aspects of both EU instruments. The Spanish order was reported in Prof. José Carlos Fernández Rozas’s blog on 25 September 2020, with a link to the official document in Spanish. I found it of big interest and have summarized the factual situation and the questions in English for the EAPIL, while waiting for the case to be given a file number and properly translated.

The litigants were married on 25 August 2010 at the Spanish Embassy in Guinea Bissau (Africa); the wife is a Spanish national, while the husband has Portuguese nationality. Their children have both Spanish and Portuguese nationality. The family resided in Guinea-Bissau from August 2010 until February 2015; they moved then to the Republic of Togo. They separated de facto in July 2018. Mother and children continue to reside in the matrimonial home; the husband moved to a bungalow, in the same country.

Both spouses work for the European Commission at the Delegation in Togo, as contractual agents. According to the evidence submitted contractual agents are granted diplomatic status in the country of destination, whereas in the EU Member States they are considered as EU officials only (NoA: this point seems to be nonetheless contested).

On 6 March 2019, the legal representative of the wife lodged an application for divorce with the Spanish courts. She asked as well for the dissolution of the matrimonial property regime, for the adoption of measures regarding the custody of the children, for maintenance for the children, and for the exclusive use of the family home in Togo. The Spanish Court of First Instance dismissed the application for divorce on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

The wife appealed against the order before the Audiencia Provincial in Barcelona. The following questions (freely translated by myself) are now before the CJEU:

1)          How should the concept of ‘habitual residence’ in Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003 and on Article 3 of Regulation 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation) be interpreted in relation to nationals of Member States who remain in a third State by reason of the functions they are entrusted with as contractual agents of the EU, and who, in that third State, are accorded the status of diplomatic agents of the EU due to the fact that their presence there is linked to the exercise of the functions they perform for the Union?

2)          Is the determination of the habitual residence of the minor children of the couple under Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003 affected in any way where, for the purposes of Article 3 of Regulation No 2001/2003 and Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009, the determination of the spouses’ habitual residence is dependent on their status as contractual agents of the European Union in a third State?

3)          Should the minor children be deemed not to have their habitual residence in the third State, can account be taken of the link between the nationality of the mother, her residence in Spain prior to the celebration of the marriage, the Spanish nationality of the minor children and their birth in Spain for the purposes of determining habitual residence under Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003?

4)          If it is established that neither the habitual residence of the parents nor that of the children is in a Member State, and given that under Regulation No 2201/2003 no other Member State would be competent to settle the claims, does the fact that the defendant is a national of a Member State preclude the application of the residual rules of jurisdiction under Articles 7 and 14 of Regulation No 2201/2003?

5)          Should it be established that neither the habitual residence of the parents nor that of the minors is in a Member State, for the purposes of determining the maintenance of the children, how is the forum necessitatis rule of Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 to be interpreted and, in particular, which elements are needed to establish that proceedings cannot reasonably be filed or carried out in a third country with which the dispute has a close relationship (in this case, Togo)? Is it compulsory, on the other hand, to demonstrate that an attempt at bringing proceedings in that State has been made, with a negative outcome? Moreover, would the nationality of any of the litigants be considered a ‘sufficient connection’ to the Member State (for the purposes of Article 7 of the Maintenance Regulation)?

6)          In a situation like the one at stake, where the spouses have strong ties with Member States (nationality, former residence) would it be contrary to Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to conclude, in application of the rules of the Regulations, that no Member States has jurisdiction to adjudicate?

Clearly the CJEU has a chance to elaborate; good that the national authorities keep on asking.

Guillaume Payan (University of Toulon, France) edited a Compendium of the Hague Conventions and Protocols enriched by case law from Belgian, French, Luxembourg and Swiss jurisdictions, as well as European jurisdictions (CJUE and ECtHR), published by Bruylant (Conventions et Protocoles de La Haye annotés : Recueil annoté avec les jurisprudences des juridictions belges, françaises, luxembourgeoises et suisses ainsi que des juridictions européennes).

The author has provided the following abstract in English:

Established 125 years ago, the main goal of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is to work for the progressive unification of the private international law rules. Against that background, international conventions are negotiated and, by now, 40 conventions have already been adopted. The most recent is the Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters.

This book brings together all of these Conventions and Protocols, enriched by numerous doctrinal references and more than 600 case law references from Belgian, French, Luxembourg and Swiss jurisdictions.

Are also included judgments of the Court of Justice of the European Union and the European Court of Human Rights. The European Courts also have to integrate the Hague Conventions into their reasoning.

Finally, the book contains practical information on the Contracting Parties to the various conventions and on any declarations formulated by the Contracting Parties, as well as on the Central Authorities designated for the proper application of the conventions.

This work is prefaced by Christophe Bernasconi (Secretary General of the Hague Conference).

Contributors to the book include : Lora Arnould (Lawyer in Brussels, Belgium), Aude Berthe (Judge in Liège, Belgium), Prof. François Bohnet (University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland), Catalina Constantina (University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland), Carmela -Milena Liccardo (Lawyer in Brussels, Belgium) and Prof. Séverine Menetrey (University of Luxembourg, Luxembourg)

The book’s table of contents can be found here. For further information see here.

Haris Meidanis’ new article on international mediation has just appeared at the current issue (2020/2) of the Journal of Private International Law under the title Enforcement of mediation settlement agreements in the EU and the need for reform.

In this article he discusses the current status of EU law on cross-border enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreements (MSAs) focusing mainly on non-family law matters. Directive 2008/52 states the form an MSA may take under the national legislation, as the basis of cross-border enforcement. Given (a) the polyphony of national legislation as to the form an MSA may take for enforcement purposes and (b) the meaning of “judgment” under EU private international law and the Solo Kleinmotoren case, it is suggested that a level playing field as to cross-border enforcement of MSAs in the EU is not guaranteed. Further, it is suggested that MSAs constitute the outcome of a third distinct dispute resolution category, next to judgments and awards, and are also distinct to contracts. It is concluded that a reform of EU law seems necessary in order to mitigate the above lack of an equal level playing field and to take into account the special character of MSAs.

This is the third recent article on international mediation by the same writer, following the one published with Arbitration (the law review of CIArb) on Vol 85-Feb 2019, pp. 49-64, under the title International Enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreements – Two and a half models, and the one published with ICC’s Dispute Resolution Bulletin (Issue 1, 2020, pp. 41-52) under the title International Mediation and Private International Law.

The CIArb article presents the various models regarding international enforcement of Mediated Settlement Agreements (namely the ones of the Singapore Convention of 2019 of the EU and of the New York Convention of 1958 (the “half model”) and makes the related comparison, while the ICC article presents the basic issues that may appear in an international mediation, from a PIL perspective.

The Organisation for the Harmonisation of Business Law in Africa (OHADA) has selected a team to prepare a draft Uniform Act of Private International Law. After a 10 month selection process, it has chosen a team led by the Paris office of Shearman & Sterling (see the announcement of the firm here).

The  mandate consists of drafting a Uniform Act on conflict of laws, conflicts of jurisdictions and the circulation of judicial and extrajudicial documents. The Act should contain an exhaustive set of PIL rules, which will be directly applicable in the 17 OHADA States and replace any local PIL rules currently applicable in those States. This would be the tenth Uniform Act adopted by OHADA.

OHADA was established in 1993 with the goal of harmonizing the business laws of its member States in order to foster economic development in the region. It comprises States mostly from francophone Central and Western Africa.

The team is composed of attorneys from the Paris office of the firm, but also several academics and practitioners from France and OHADA states (Cameroon and Ivory Coast, in particular).

One is hopeful that the team will want to identify the best solutions for Africa not only by considering the recent codifications of PIL drafted in French (Belgium Code of PIL, Swiss PIL Act, Quebec legislations, in particular), but also the PIL of other legal traditions, including those of neighbouring states such as Nigeria and Ghana.

The author of this post is Lorenzo Acconciamessa, a PhD candidate at the University of Palermo and a teaching assistant at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan.

By an order of 29 April 2020 the First Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court asked the Italian Constitutional Court to review the constitutional legitimacy of the combined operation of the various Italian rules of private international law governing the (non-)recognition of a foreign birth certificate attesting the existence of a parent-child relationship between a child born abroad by resorting to gestational surrogacy and his intended parent. In 2019, the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court ruled that, on a proper interpretation of the Italian provisions of private international, such recognition ought to be denied on the ground that it would offend public policy. Put shortly, by its order of April 2020, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court asked the Constitutional Court to assess whether the above provisions, as interpreted by the Joint Chambers in the ruling of 2019, are consistent with the Italian Constitution.

One of the key issues that the Constitutional Court will need to address is whether, and to what extent, international human rights law – notably as expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – affects the ability of State’s authorities to refuse the recognition of personal statuses and family relationships on grounds of public policy, thereby precluding the cross-border continuity of the concerned persons’ family status validly and effectively created abroad. Indeed, pursuant to Article 117, paragraph 1, of the Italian Constitution, legislation cannot infringe the international obligations of Italy. In this regard, the Constitutional Court made clear that in the event of a conflict between a piece of domestic legislation and the obligations arising from an international treaty in force for Italy, the former must be considered to be unconstitutional and accordingly declared void.

The case concerned a same-sex couple of Italian men who got married in Canada. Their marriage was recognised in Italy as a registered partnership, pursuant to Article 32-bis of the Italian Statute on Private International Law. They subsequently had a child in Canada by resorting to surrogate motherhood. Surrogacy is permitted in Canada, provided that the surrogate mother acts freely and altruistically. The child’s birth certificate had been recognised and recorded in Italy following a decision of the Registrar of the Municipality of Verona. However, the certificate merely mentioned the spouse having a biological bond with the child. The couple seised the Supreme Court of British Columbia to have the birth certificate rectified: they wished that both – the biological and the intended fathers – be referred to as the parents of the child. Their application was successful. The couple then requested that such rectification be recognised in Italy. The Registrar, however, dismissed the request, arguing that recognition would be at variance with the Italian public policy.

On several occasions, in the past, the Italian Supreme Court restricted public policy to such fundamental values as are shared by the international community. On those grounds, the First Chamber ruled in 2016 that the public policy defence could not be raised to prevent the recognition of a foreign birth certificate attesting the family relationship between a child and his two mothers (the biological one, who carried on the pregnancy, and the genetical one, who had donated the ovum). Public policy, the Court argued, encompasses fundamental principles enshrined in the Italian Constitution as well as in supranational and international human rights instruments by which Italy is bound. The best interests of the child, and his right to personal and social identity, are then to be considered as public policy principles.

According to this view, the mere incompatibility between foreign judgments or public acts and domestic mandatory provisions is not enough to trigger the public policy defence. The same approach was followed by the Court of Appeal of Venice in the case that the Italian Constitutional Court is now called upon to consider. In particular, the Court of Appeal submitted that the fact that Italian law fails to make provision for same-sex marriage and for the attribution, to both the parties of a same-sex couple, of the parental status over a child born through medically assisted procreation, is not, in itself, evidence of the existence of a corresponding public policy principle. The statutes providing for such rules, indeed, are mere expression of the legislature’s political discretion.

However, the State Attorney was not satisfied by the judgment of the Court of Appeal and moved to have the ruling reviewed by the Supreme Court. He argued that the recognition of the Canadian judgment would be in clear breach of the Italian legislation on filiation and medically assisted procreation and, as a consequence, at odds with the public order of Italy. The State Attorney, in particular, invoked a different conception of the public policy, as adopted by the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court.

And indeed, in 2019 the Joint Chambers remarked that other principles of the forum must be taken into account when determining the scope of public policy, in addition to the principles arising from the Constitution and international instruments. Domestic ordinary legislation may be seen as providing evidence of the fundamental policies of the Italian legal order as well, namely where it implements the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

According to that approach, while the recognition of the family relationship between the child born under a surrogacy arrangement and the intended biological father – through the recording of the birth certificate – is justified by the existence of a biological relationship, the recording of the part of the certificate mentioning as parent the merely intended (non-biological nor genetic) father would be at odds with the Italian (criminal) prohibition of gestational surrogacy arrangements, provided for in Article 12, paragraph 6, of the Italian Statute on Medically Assisted Procreation. Such regulation is deemed by the Joint Chambers to implement constitutional principles concerning the protection of the dignity of the woman and, consequently, to express a public policy principle. In the Joint Sections’ view, such a statement is imposed by an incontestable appreciation of the legislator and by the Constitutional Court’s case-law. As a consequence, judges would be precluded from substituting their own assessment on this matter.

The Joint Chambers added that the protection of the (best) interests of the child, in any case, would be guaranteed by the possibility, for the intended, non biological parent, to resort to the “adoption in particular cases”, pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 1, of the Italian Statute on Adoption. It is a sort of last resort clause allowing for recognition of the emotional bond between the child and the intended parent, when he/she is also the biological parent’s spouse, or, in any case, provided that the relationship has been established as a social reality. The Joint Chambers tried to frame their approach within the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) doctrine of the margin of appreciation. In particular, they considered that Italy had already complied with ECHR standards by providing full recognition of the child’s relationship with the biological parent. By contrast, in the absence of a biological link with the intended parent, State’s authorities would retain a wide margin of appreciation in choosing the appropriate mechanism for assuring the establishment of a legal relationship comparable (not identical) to natural filiation.

The Joint Chambers’ approach is not in itself at odds with the ECHR standards, at least as they were standing at the moment of the 2019 ruling. In the Strasbourg judges’ opinion, the right to personal identity, enshrined in Article 8 ECHR, may imply a right to the cross-border continuity of personal statuses and family relationships created abroad (see Marongiu Buonaiuti and Baratta). And indeed, non-recognition of family statuses validly and effectively created abroad interferes with the right to private and family life. The case at hand fulfils the conditions required under Article 8 ECHR to be entitled to that right: (1) from a formal point of view, the family tie has been validly and legally created before seeking its recognition; (2) from a substantial point of view, the family relationship has been established a social reality, having the child lived with the biological and the intended father since he was born. Moreover, the case involves essential interests of a child, which should be a primary consideration of the State (Neuliger and Shuruck, para. 135).

According to the Court’s well-established case-law, however, if the interference is prescribed in accordance with the law, pursues a legitimate aim and is “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving it, it can be defined as legitimate. Such right might be limited by applying the public policy clause, which is a rule of law aimed at protecting the essential interests (and values) of the State. States enjoy a margin of appreciation in striking such a fair balance between States’ interests and individuals’ rights, that, nevertheless, has been progressively restricted by the ECtHR.

In Negrepontis-Giannisis the Court ruled that the refusal on public policy grounds to recognize an adoption pronounced (in 1984) by a Court in the U.S. between an adult and his uncle, a bishop of the Orthodox Church, violated Article 8. A few years later, the Court asserted in Paradiso and Campanelli that the public policy defence cannot be resorted to as a sort of “charte blanche for any measure, since the State ha[s] an obligation to take the child’s best interests into account irrespective of the nature of the parental link, genetic or otherwise” (para. 80). The Grand Chamber reversed the judgment because it considered that no family relationship existed in the considered case. Therefore, it was unnecessary to determine whether the interference produced by the public policy defence was legitimate, given that there was no right to interfere with.

In two well-known cases concerning the recognition of the family relationship between the child born under a surrogacy arrangement and the biological parent, the ECtHR considered that, even when a State is invoking the international public policy exception, the Court “must, however, verify whether in applying that mechanism … the domestic courts duly took account of the need to strike a fair balance between the interest of the community in ensuring that its members conform to the choice made democratically within that community [prohibiting gestational surrogacy arrangements] and the interest of the applicants – the children’s best interests being paramount – in fully enjoying their rights to respect for their private and family rights” (Labassee, para. 63 and Mennesson, para. 84). It then concluded that the children’s right to personal identity– which involves the right to have their family relationship with the (intended) biological or genetic parent recognized – trumped the State’s interests in protecting those it considers as fundamental values of the fore. According to the Court, the State had to grant the recording of the birth certificate for, at that time, no valid alternatives existed, according to the case-law of the French Court of Cassation, for establishing such a family relationship.

As for the family relationship between the child born under a gestational arrangement and the (merely) intended (non biological nor genetic) parent, the ECtHR expressed its views in the first advisory opinion, delivered, pursuant to Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR, on 10th April 2019. Indeed, following the 2014 judgment in the Mennesson case, the French Cour de Cassation asked the Grand Chamber whether the State had, under the ECHR, an obligation to recognize the family relationship also with respect to the intended parent and whether, in this case, allowing the adoption of the child sufficed. As for the first question, the Court considered that «the general and absolute impossibility of obtaining recognition of the relationship … is incompatible with the child’s best interests» (para. 42). The Court did not distinguish between the fact of the intended mother being or not also the genetic or biological mother As for the second question, the Court stipulated that the case required a fair and appropriate balancing of interests. The invocation of the public policy clause – with the aim of denying direct recognition of the foreign birth certificate or judgment – would be legitimate, in the light of the State’s margin of appreciation, provided that, in any case, adoption or other available proceedings constitute “an effective [alternative] mechanism […], enabling the relationship to be recognized” (para. 54). Such a mechanism, in the Court’s opinion, should be appropriate (guaranteeing an effective recognition of parent-child relationship), rapid, and should allow for “an assessment by the courts of the child’s best interests in the light of the circumstances of the case” (ibidem). Moreover, recognition, whatever the legal instrument resorted to, must intervene not after its effective instauration as a social reality.

Although the ECtHR’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court in the 2020 Order considered it had to uphold its findings. It then questioned the Joint Chambers arguments concerning the public policy defence by highlighting, inter alia, that it is at odds with the developments in the ECtHR’s case law, at least for two reasons. On the one hand, the Court considered it is illegitimate to qualify the prohibition of surrogacy as public policy, and to make it automatically prevail over the best interests of the child, without an appropriate case-by-case evaluation. For this end, it should be assessed whether effective alternatives exist for upholding the best interests of the child. On the other hand (and consequently), the Italian legal system is currently at odds with the ECHR for the “adoption in particular cases” do not qualify as an effective alternative mechanism, in the abovementioned meaning.

The First Chamber relied on a combination of domestic and international human rights sources to shape the extent of public policy and concluded that the principle of the best interests of the child is part of the Italian international public policy. The application of the public policy exception then requires a balancing of interests between, on one hand, the child’s interest in having his/her relationship with the intended parent recognized and, on the other hand, the State’s interests in avoiding recognition of acts which are perceived as incompatible with domestic fundamental values. According to the First Chamber, such a balancing assessment might lead to the application of a foreign law or the recognition of foreign judgments (or public document) even in violation of domestic (ordinary) rules, provided that the supreme principles of the legal order – in particular, those concerning the fundamental rights and human dignity – are not violated.

The “adoption in particular cases” would not entail such a fair balance, for it does not create a full parent-child relationship, it requires a time-consuming and complex proceeding, exposing the child’s to a period of incertitude, and is conditioned upon the parties’ will. As for the content of the established relationship, it is not comparable to natural filiation, given that it does not involve family bonds between the child and the adopter’s relatives nor succession rights. And while the State’s margin of appreciation under the ECHR, the Supreme Court argued, is wide as regards the means by which family relationships are recognised, it is not as wide as regards the “intensity” and content of such relationships.

For all the above reasons, the First Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court asked the Constitutional Court whether the Joint Sections’ approach is constitutionally legitimate, also, and in particular, in the light of the State’s obligations arising from the ECHR and the CRC.

One should also consider that the “downgrading” of the family relationship through the “adoption in particular cases”, beyond being illegitimate in light of the constitutional principle of the unity of the status filiationis irrespective of the modality and circumstances of the child’s conception and birth, would also infringe the standards that have been recently clarified by the ECtHR.

Indeed, two months after the order of the First Chamber the ECtHR delivered its judgment in D. v. France. The Court implicitly confirmed the necessity of a full legal recognition of the intended parent-child relationship, although it admitted that the methods for achieving that aim can be determined by the State in the exercise of its margin of appreciation. It means that such recognition must not necessarily be achieved through the recording of the birth certificate, provided that the State guarantees and effective and rapid recognition. The ECtHR indeed concluded that the refusal to record the birth certificate of a child born in Ukraine through a gestational arrangement as long as it mentioned the intended mother – who was also the genetic mother – as the legal mother, did not violate Article 8 ECHR. In the Court’s reasoning, the French Cour de Cassation had already confirmed possibility for the (intended) mother to adopt her spouse’s child – for the birth certificate had been recorded in respect of the intended biological father – by way of full adoption. In the Court’s view, that possibility sufficed in order to establish an effective legal parent-child relationship. And indeed, full adoption is pronounced through a rapid proceeding (para. 67) and produces « des effets de même nature que la transcription de l’acte de naissance étranger s’agissant de la reconnaissance du lien de filiation entre l’enfant et la mère d’intention » (para. 66). The case seems then to confirm, a contrario, the Italian First Chamber’s argument: the denial to record the birth certificate is legitimate as long as an alternative mechanism enabling the establishment of a full parent-child relationship exist. Therefore, in Italy, where full adoption is not allowed in the same circumstances, the recording of the birth certificate seems the last valid alternative.

The approach of the First Chamber is commendable from an inter-systemic point of view, for it gives due relevance to the ECtHR approach. In this regard, one should also consider that France already complied with the ECtHR recommendation, given that the intended parent can resort to full adoption. Moreover, in the Mennesson case the Court de Cassation finally allowed the recognition of the parent-child relationship through the recording the foreign birth certificate which mentioned the intended mother as the legal mother (see Arrêt n. 648 P+B+R+I). Given the circumstances of the case, in fact, the Court considered that, following 15 years of judicial proceedings, the best interests of the child required an immediate recognition of the relationship, without imposing to the intended mother the institution of an adoption proceeding.

However, it is unlikely that the Italian Constitutional Court will conclude that non-recognition amounts to a violation of the Constitution. In fact, the Court itself ruled in the past that gestational arrangements violate the woman’s dignity and that, in any case, the adoption in particular cases is an adequate alternative to the (full) recognition of the parent-child relationship (Judgment No. 272 of 2017). It has also ruled against same-sex filiation through medically assisted procreation (Judgment No. 221 of 2019).

The relevant issue will thus concern the parameter of constitutionality arising from Article 117 of the Italian Constitution. Pursuant to that provision, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court since the twin Judgments Nos 348 and 349 of 2007, the legitimacy of ordinary legislation is also assessed against such international treaties as are in force for Italy. The Constitutional Court is then, first of all, called to assess whether the developments in the ECtHR’s case-law have already restricted the State’s margin of appreciation in respect of the recognition of the family relationship between the child born abroad under a surrogacy arrangement and the intended parent.

However, the late approach of the Constitutional Court has mitigated to idea of the prevalence of international principles over national ones (Judgment No. 269 of 2017) and has considerably impacted the extent of the binding nature of ECtHR’s judgments for national judges (Judgment No. 49 of 2015). It is then possible that the Constitutional Court will stipulate that the Constitution prevails over those international obligations. In fact, should the Constitutional Court conclude that the absence of suitable alternatives actually precludes Italian authorities, in the light of the ECHR, from invoking the public policy clause, it is also possible that the constitutional judges will invoke the doctrine of the “counter-limits”, although that doctrine, as for now, has been invoked only in relation to customary international law and European Union law. In particular, it has been invoked by the Constitutional Court (Judgment No. 238 of 2014), with respect to the dispute between Italy and Germany which arose when the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Germany was not entitled to immunity from Italian jurisdiction in civil proceedings where the claimants pleaded redress for serious human rights violations perpetrated by the Third Reich in Italy during World War II. The Constitutional Court concluded that respect for international obligations of the State – namely, the customary rule on State immunity as well as the judgment of the International Court of Justice which had condemned Italy to uphold such rule – could not extent to the point of infringing the “supreme” principles enshrined in the Constitution.

In the present case, there is the possibility that the Constitutional Court will conclude that the prohibition of surrogacy arrangements actually implements fundamental constitutional principles that cannot be trumped by ECHR obligations. And given that treaty provision, by definition, must respect constitutional provisions, the Court could also come to the same conclusion without invoking the counter-limits doctrine.

Should the Constitutional Court reject, for that or other reasons, the referral, the First Chamber would be obliged to apply the current interpretation of the public order defence, as stipulated by the Joint Chambers. In this case, the couple might then apply to the ECtHR, seeking a declaration that Italy violated Article 8 ECHR.

In conclusion, while the First Chamber is trying to engage in a dialogue with the ECtHR and to uphold its findings in the Italian legal order, the case also prospects the possibility of a direct clash between the European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court, concerning a very sensitive and ethical issue. Given that it is quite unlikely that the Parliament would opt for a reform of the legislation to comply with the ECHR standards, the Constitutional judgement will decide whether Italy will be in a systemic and persistent situation of breaching the ECHR.