Droit international général

The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has been published.

EDITORIAL

M.H. ten Wolde / p. 626-628

ARTICLES

A. Mens, De kwalificatie en de rechtsgevolgen van de erkenning van een kafala op grond van het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht/ p. 628-649

Abstract

This article focuses on the qualification and legal consequences of recognising a kafala under Dutch private international law. A kafala is a child protection measure under Islamic law, which entails an obligation to care for, protect, raise, and support a child, but without any implications for lineage or inheritance rights. The main conclusion is that a kafala generally constitutes both a guardianship and a maintenance decision. Consequently, the recognition of a foreign kafala in the Netherlands essentially entails the recognition of both the guardian’s (kafil) authority over the child (makful) and the recognition of the guardian’s maintenance obligation towards the child.

B. van Houtert, The Anti-SLAPP Directive in the context of EU and Dutch private international law: improvements and (remaining) challenges to protect SLAPP targets / p. 651-673

Abstract

While the scope of the Anti-SLAPP Directive is broad, this paper argues that the criteria of ‘manifestly unfounded claims’ and the ‘main purpose of deterrence of public participation’ may challenge the protection of SLAPP targets. The Real Madrid ruling should nonetheless play an important guiding role in all Member States; the legal certainty and protection for SLAPP targets will increase by applying by analogy the factors of the Real Madrid ruling established by the CJEU to assess whether there is a manifest breach of the right to freedom of expression. Although the Anti-SLAPP Directive provides various procedural safeguards for SLAPP victims, it does not prevent SLAPP targets from being abusively sued in multiple Member States on the basis of online infringements of personality rights or copyrights. The recast of the Brussels Ibis and Rome II should alleviate this negative effect of the mosaic approach by adopting the ‘directed activities’ approach.
While the public policy exception in Dutch PIL already has a great deal of potential to refuse the recognition and enforcement of third-country judgments involving a SLAPP, the grounds in Article 16 Anti-SLAPP Directive provide legal certainty, and likely have a deterrent effect on claimants outside the EU. As EU and Dutch PIL generally do not provide a venue for SLAPP targets to seek compensation for the damage and costs incurred regarding the third-country proceedings initiated by the SLAPP claimant domiciled outside the EU, the venue provided by Article 17(1) Anti-SLAPP Directive improves the access to Member State courts for SLAPP targets domiciled in the EU. However, although Articles 15 and 17 Anti-SLAPP Directive aim to facilitate redress for SLAPP victims, the re-sulting Member State judgments may not be effective in case these are not recognised and enforced by third states. Hence, international cooperation is important to combat SLAPPs worldwide.

V. Van Den Eeckhout, Rechtspraak van het Hof van Justitie van de Europese Unie inzake internationaal privaatrecht anno 2024. Enkele beschouwingen over de aanwezigheid, de relevantie en de positie van internationaal privaatrecht in de rechtspraak van het Hof. Een proces van inpassing? Over de gangmakersfunctie van het ipr / p. 675-693

Abstract

With the increase in the number of European regulations on Private International Law, increasing attention has been paid by scholars to issues of consistency between different private international law regimes. The foregoing also includes attention to the position of the Court of Justice of the European Union with regard to (un)harmonised interpretation when answering preliminary questions on the interpretation of those regimes.
This contribution examines a number of current developments concerning the ‘PIL case law’ of the Court, viewed from the perspective of consistency, albeit in a broad sense: it examines aspects of judgments of the Court that lend themselves to highlighting various facets and dimensions of consistency. As a matter of fact, current case law and developments invite those who wish to pay attention to issues of consistency regarding the Court’s PIL case law to adopt a broad perspective and, while discussing aspects of consistency, to highlight points of attention regarding the presence, the relevance and the position of PIL in the Court’s case law, going along with issues of ‘fitting in’ of case law.
The paper includes a discussion of aspects of, i.a., C-267/19 and C-323/19 (joined cases Parking and Interplastics), C-774/22 (FTI Touristik), C-230/21 (X v. Belgische Staat, Refugiee mineure mariee), C-600/23 (Royal Football Club Seraing), C-347/18 (Salvoni) and C-568/20 (H Limited).

M.H. ten Wolde, Oude Nederlandse partiële rechtskeuzes en het overgangsrecht van artikel 83(2) Erfrechtverordening / p. 695-702

Abstract

On 9 September 2021, the ECJ ruled in case C-277/20 (UM) that Article 83(2) of the Regulation on succession does not apply to a choice of law made in an agreement as to succession in respect of a particular asset of the estate. Such a choice of law does not concern the succession in the estate as a whole and therefore falls outside the scope of the said provision, the Court stated. The question arises whether such partial choices of law made before 17 August 2015 have been voided with the CJEU’s ruling now that they likewise concern only certain assets and not the estate as a whole.

CASE NOTE

B. Schmitz, Artikel 6 lid 2 Rome I-Verordening en het Duitse Bundesgerichtshof. Bundesgerichtshof 15 mei 2024 – VIII ZR 226/22 (Teakbomen) / p. 703-709

Abstract

The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has ruled in its recent decision that Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation contains the preferential law approach. In its reasoning, the court specifically refers to three recent CJEU judgements to support this view. However, this case note argues that these CJEU judgements are not a valid basis for such reasoning. Instead, the BGH should have turned to Article 8 Rome I Regulation and its case law to apply the Gruber Logistics ruling by analogy.

LATEST PHDS

B. Schmitz, Rethinking the consumer conflict rule – Article 6(2) Rome I Regulation and party autonomy in light of principles, efficiency, and harmonisation (dissertation, University of Groningen, 2024) (Summary) / p. 711-714

BOOK ANNOUNCEMENT

M.H. ten Wolde, book announcement: Chr. von Bar, O.L. Knöfel, U. Magnus, H.-P. Mansel and A. Wudarski (eds.), Gedächtnisschrift für Peter Mankowski [A Commemorative Volume for Peter Mankowski], Tübingen: Mohr-Siebeck 2024, XIV + 1208 p. / p. 715-717

On 16 January 2025 the European e-Justice Strategy 2024–2028 has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union. It provides a framework designed to enhance the digitalization of justice systems across the EU and is a continuation of the Union’s ongoing efforts to modernize judicial systems. Context The Strategy builds on several EU […]

A recent study by the Law Commission of England and Wales has resulted in proposed amendments to the Arbitration Act 1996 that include a default rule that an arbitration agreement will be governed by the law of England and Wales if the arbitration is seated in that territory. Given the importance of London as an arbitration center, this has implications for many international commercial contracts.

In his new article, Professor Ron Brand from the University of Pittsburgh School of Law challenges the premise behind the proposed amendment that there is a single “law of the arbitration agreement.” Instead, he demonstrates that there are multiple laws applicable to an arbitration agreement. He explains this multiplicity of applicable laws by considering the possible grounds for challenge of jurisdiction of an arbitral tribunal based on the arbitration agreement. Such an analysis demonstrates that very different laws may apply to questions of the existence, formal validity, substantive validity, scope, and exclusivity of an arbitration agreement. He reviews these issues in the broader context of choice of forum clauses generally, including both arbitration and choice of court agreements, and then considers a hypothetical international commercial transaction in which questions might arise about the first four of these five jurisdictional questions – demonstrating both the problems with the idea of a single “law of the arbitration agreement,” as well as the practical impact and importance of well-drafted choice of forum agreements, including provisions on choice of law. Although prompted by the proposed change in English law, this discussion has implications for the law in every jurisdiction regarding agreements to arbitrate, indicating that both transaction planners and dispute resolution lawyers need to be cognizant of the laws applicable to arbitration and choice of court agreements.

The article is available here.

The Court of First Instance of Mytilene (Greece) ruled on 16 May 2024 on an application filed by the mother of child against the child’s father. Acting on behalf of the child, the mother requested injunctive relief for child support (judgment No 161/2024, published in the Thessaloniki Bar Rewiew ‘Armenopoulos’ 2025, pp. 1497 et seq.) […]

The thirty-eighth annual survey on choice of law in the American courts is now available on SSRN. The survey covers significant cases decided in 2024 on choice of law, party autonomy, extraterritoriality, international human rights, foreign sovereign immunity, adjudicative jurisdiction, and the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments.

This annual survey was admirably maintained by Symeon Symeonides for three decades. The present authors are pleased to have extended this tradition.

Those interested in EU private international law may want to follow the hearing in case C-77/24, Wummer, on 5 February. The Oberster Gerichtshof (Austria) has referred to the Court of Justice two questions on the interpretation of the Rome II Regulation pursuant to Article 267 TFEU: 1. Must Article 1(2)(d) of [the Rome II Regulation] […]

The European Commission published on 31 January 2025 its long-awaited report (COM(2025) 20 final) on the application of Regulation No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). The report is based on Article 30 of the Regulation. The latter provision required the Commission to submit to the European Parliament, the Council and […]

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 January 2025, the 2005 Choice of Court Convention entered into force for Switzerland. At present, 36 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. More information is available here.

On 12 January 2025, the 2007 Child Support Convention entered into force for Cabo Verde. At present, 52 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 10 January 2025, representatives from 19 French-speaking African States, along with a delegate from the Organisation internationale de la Francophonie, convened in Brussels for a meeting focused on exploring the benefits of membership in the HCCH and the Permanent Court of Arbitration. More information is available here.

On 24 January 2025, the Working Party on Cross-Border Family Mediation in the Context of the Malta Process met online. During the meeting, participants discussed the future trajectory of the Working Party, taking into consideration the results of the questionnaire circulated in 2024 and the discussions held at the Malta V conference in October 2024. More information is available here.

 

Vacancies

Applications are now open for the position of Administrative Assistant. The deadline for the submission of applications is 22 February 2025. More information is available here.

Applications for a remote Communications and Outreach Internship will open next week. More information will soon be available here.

 

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

The fourth issue of 2024 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features:

Francesca C. Villata, Professor at the University of Milan, On the Track of the Law Applicable to Preliminary Questions in EU Private International Law [in English]

Silenced, if not neglected, in (most) legislation and practice, the issue of determining the law applicable to preliminary questions is a constant feature in the systematics of private international law (“p.i.l.”). In legal doctrine, in a nutshell, the discussion develops along the traditional alternative techniques of (i) the independent connection (or disjunctive solution, based on recourse to the conflict rules of the forum even for preliminary questions), (ii) the dependent connection (to which both the so-called “joint” solution and the “absorption” solution are attributable, for which, respectively, the conflict rules of the lex causae or, directly, the substantive law of the latter are relevant), or, finally, (iii) the approach which emphasises the procedural dimension of preliminary questions and leads them back to the substantive law of the forum. In these pages, an attempt is made to ascertain whether, in the absence of EU rules explicitly intended to determine the law applicable to preliminary questions, there are nevertheless indications within the EU Regulations containing uniform conflict rules that make it possible to reconstruct, at least in selected cases, an inclination, if not adherence, of the European legislature to a specific technique for resolving preliminary questions. To this end, particular attention will be paid to the rules defining the material scope of application of the various EU p.il. Regulations in force and in the making, to those establishing the “scope” of the applicable law identified by these Regulations, and to those concerning the circulation (of points) of decisions on preliminary questions. This approach will concern both the preliminary questions the subject-matter of which falls ratione materiae within the scope of those Regulations and those that do not. On the assumption that at least in some areas, if not in all, the EU legislator does not take a position on the law applicable to preliminary questions, leaving this task to the law of the Member States, the compatibility of the traditional alternative techniques used in the law of the Member States (or in practice) with the general and sec-toral objectives of EU p.i.l. and with the obligation to safeguard its effectiveness will be assessed. Finally, some considerations will be made as to the appropriateness, relevance and extent of an initiative of the EU legislator on this topic, as well as the coordinates to be considered in such an exercise.

Sara Tonolo, Professor at the University of Padova, Luci e ombre: il diritto internazionale privato è strumento di contrasto allo sfruttamento della povertà o di legittimazione dell’ingiustizia? [Lights and Shadows: Is Private International Law a Tool for Combating the Exploitation of Poverty or Legitimising Injustice?; in Italian]

The relationship between private international law and poverty is complex and constantly evolving. It is a multifaceted issue in which private international law plays an ambivalent role: on the one hand, as a tool to combat the exploitation of poverty, and on the other, as a means of legitimizing injustice. The analysis of the role of private international law in countering the exploitation of poverty often intersects with other fields, such as immigration law, due to the relevance that private law institutions have on individuals’ status and their international mobility, which is significantly affected in the case of people in situations of poverty.

Lidia Sandrini, Professor at the University of Milan, La legge applicabile al lavoro mediante piattaforma digitale, tra armonizzazione materiale e norme di conflitto [The Law Applicable to Labour through a Digital Platform, between Material Harmonisation and Conflict of Law Rules; in Italian]

This article explores the phenomenon of platform work in the legal framework of the European Union from the methodological point of view of the relationship between substantive law and conflict-of-law rules. After a brief examination of the text of the Directive (EU) No. 2024/2831 “on improving working conditions in platform work”, aimed at identifying its overall rationale and the aspects that most directly reverberate effects on the EU conflict-of-law rules, the article investigates its interference with Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 (Rome I), proposing an assessment of the solutions accepted from the point of view of the coherence between the two acts and their adequacy to their respective purposes.

This issue also comprises the following comments:

Stefano Dominelli, Associate Professor at the University of Genoa, A New Legal Status for the Environment and Animals, and Private International Law: Tertium Genus Non Datur? Some Thoughts on (the Need for) Eco-Centric Approaches in Conflict of Laws [in English]

Traditional continental approaches postulate a fundamental contraposition between (natural and legal) ‘persons’ – entitled to a diverse range of rights – and ‘things’. Conflict of laws is methodologically coherent with an anthropocentric understanding of the law. Yet, in some – limited – cases, components of the environment are granted a legal personality and some rights. Narratives for animals’ rights are emerging as well. This work wishes to contribute to current debates transposing in the field of conflict of laws reflections surrounding non-human legal capacity by addressing legal problems a national (Italian) court might face should a non-human-based entity start proceedings in Italy. The main issues explored are those related to the possibility of said entity to exist as an autonomous rights-holder and thus to start legal proceedings; to the search for the proper conflict-of-laws provisions as well as to the conceptual limits surrounding connecting factors developed for ‘humans’. Furthermore, public policy limits in the recognition of non-human-derived autonomous rights-holders will be explored. The investigation will conclude by highlighting the possible role of private international law in promoting societal and legal changes if foreign legal personality to the environment is recognised in the forum.

Sara Bernasconi, Researcher at the University of Milan, Il ruolo del diritto internazionale privato e processuale nell’attuazione del «pacchetto sui mercati e servizi digitali» (DMA&DSA) [The Role of Private International and Procedural Law in the Implementation of the ‘Digital Markets and Services Package’ (DMA&DSA); in Italian]

In line with the goal to achieve a fair and competitive economy, Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act) and Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of 19 October 2022 on a Single Market For Digital Services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) – composing the so called Digital Services Act Package – aim at introducing a uniform legal framework for digital services provided in the Union, mainly protecting EU-based recipients, companies and the whole society from new risks and challenges stemming from new and innovative business models and services, such as online social networks and online platforms. Namely, the ambition of the abovementioned regulations is, on the one hand, to regulate, with an ex ante approach, platform activities so to reduce side-effects of the platform economy and therefore ensure contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and, on the other hand, to introduce EU uniform to grant a safe, predictable and trustworthy online environment for recipients (e.g. liability of providers of intermediary services for illegal contents and on obligations on transparency, online interface design and organization, online advertising). Despite expressly recognising the inherently cross-border nature of the Internet, which is generally used to provide digital services, DMA and DSA do not contain any private international law rule or provide for any provision on the relationship between the two sectors, but only state that their rules do not prejudice EU rules on judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. Therefore, the present article will discuss the role of private international law rules in the daily application of DMA and DSA to cross-border situations. Accordingly, after having ascertained the so called extraterritorial effects of the new rule on digital markets and digital services and assessed their overriding mandatory nature, the author first investigates the role that conflict-of-laws provisions could possibly play in the application of DMA and DSA, by integrating such regimes, and then suggests a possible role also for rules on jurisdiction in a private enforcement perspective, highlighting potential scenarios and possible difficulties arising from the need to coordinate two different set of rules (i.e. substantive provisions on digital markets and digital services, on the one hand, and private international rules, on the other hand).

Finally, the issue features the following book review by Gabriella Venturini, former Professor at the University of Milan: INSTITUT DE DROIT INTERNATIONAL, 150 ans de contributions au développement du droit international: Livre du sesquicentenaire de l’Institut de Droit international (1873-2023)/150 Years of Contributing to the Development of International Law: Sesquicentenary Book of the Institute of International Law (1873-2023), Justitia et Pace, edited by Kohen, van der Heijden, Paris, Editions A. Pedone, 2023, p. 1053.

 

The latest issue of the Journal of Private International Law (Volume 20, Issue 3) is a special issue in honour of Professor Trevor C Hartley. It features an introduction, Professor Hartley’s bibliography and 11 articles: Jacco Bomhoff, Uglješa Grušić and Manuel Penades Fons, Introduction to the special issue in honour of Professor Trevor Hartley, 501-508 […]

The next meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is scheduled to take place on 4-7 March 2025. According to the meeting’s draft agenda, the CGAP will deal, among other things, with the project on Voluntary Carbon Markets (VCMs), following last year’s meeting, […]

This post has been written by Michiel Poesen, lecturer in private international law at the University of Aberdeen. The author asks the question whether the territorial scope of the European AI Act and the Revised Product Liability Directive are consistent. Both instruments are intended to work in tandem. While the former sets out the obligations […]

The European Law Institute (ELI) Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters project is organising its dissemination conference in Vienna on 14 February. At this all-day event (9.00 to 18.00) experts will present their country reports, comparative findings and policy recommendations, in order to discuss these with the audience.

The project investigated the phenomenon that family and succession law matters are increasingly submitted to other authorities than courts. It seeks a to establish a harmonised concept of “courts” in the EU, taking into account the CJEU case law.

More information and the registration form are available on the ELI website.

Monika Wałachowska (Nicolaus Copernicus University, Toruń), Mariusz Fras (University of Silesia, Katowice) and Pierpaolo Marano (University of Malta) edited Insurance in Private International Law. Insurance and Reinsurance in Private International Law, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law with Springer. The book is part of the AIDA Europe Research Series on Insurance Law and Regulation. Structured into two […]

On Tuesday, February 4, 2025, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00 a.m. – 12:30 p.m. (CET). Professor Pietro Franzina (Catholic University of the Sacred Heart) will speak, in English, about the topic

“EU Private International Law at a Time of ‘Broken Multilateralism’ and Growing Geo-Political Tensions”

 

Multilateralism is in crisis. The role of world organisations in international politics and law-making is increasingly being questioned, as some key actors in the global arena no longer consider cooperation and collective action the best way to address common concerns. While multilateralism is not obsolete, let alone ‘dead’, as some claim, there is a growing consensus that current governance schemes need profound reconsideration. The EU, multilateralism’s staunchest defender, is especially exposed to these developments. While the evolution of multilateralism is set to affect all areas of international cooperation, each field has, arguably, its specificities. What features does cooperation in the field of private international law display in this regard? How can the crisis of multilateralism influence the way in which the EU deals with judicial cooperation, be it through its legislation, in the relations with its neighbours and at the global level? What structural changes are under way in global fora, such as the HCCH, and what is their impact on the EU’s own agenda and methods of work?

 

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

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

This post was written by Ottavia Cazzola, a PhD candidate at the University of Barcelona Barcelona participating in Action Grant “Towards Universal Parenthood in Europe (UniPAR)” (JUST-2023-JCOO; Project ID: 101137859). On 4 December 2024, the Spanish Supreme Court issued a decision stating that the recognition of a foreign judgment establishing filiation regarding the commissioning parents […]

A conference will take place on 14 February 2025 from 9 to 18 CET at the University of Vienna in connection with the project of the European Law Institute on Extra-Judicial Administration of Justice in Cross-Border Family and Succession Matters. The event will also be streamed online. With competences in family and succession matters increasingly […]

I have already reported on this blog that in 2024 the Law Commission of England and Wales published a call for evidence to help them identify the most challenging and prevalent issues of private international law that arise from the digital, online, and decentralised contexts in which modern digital assets and electronic trade documents are used. […]

In an increasingly interconnected world, the application of laws by States beyond their territorial borders is an everyday reality. Yet, almost a century after the (still) leading findings by the PCIJ in the Case of the S.S. “Lotus”, the details of the concept of “extraterritoriality” remain elusive, and one can easily get lost in the multitude of national practices, ranging from  “presumptions against extraterritoriality” to be found mostly in federal systems (mostly for sub-units) to “effects doctrines” and the like in certain areas of law such as e.g. (early) in Germany, (later) in the EU’s competition law and today many other jurisdictions, in particular in Asia.

Given this complexity, this latest publication of the Ius Comparatum Series on “Extraterritoriality in Comparative Perspective” edited by Hannah L. Buxbaum offers a great deal of valuable guidance and insights. Featuring the reports from the most recent IACL/AIDC General Congress in Asunción, the volume provides the reader with unique insights by renowned legal scholars into the practices of 14 national jurisdictions (inter alia China, Germany, Japan, Korea, UK, U.S.) and the the European Union (EU). As is explained in the preface to the book:

Much of the vast scholarly literature on extraterritoriality approaches the topic from the outside in, assessing the extraterritorial projection of state law from the perspective of international law and the constraints it places on state authority. The goal of this project is to approach the topic from the inside out. Considering a range of legal systems, the authors investigate the geographic scope that states claim for their own laws, and the mechanisms by which states translate and locally implement principles of international jurisdictional law.

A particularly valuable contribution is Buxbaum’s General Report. It identifies, inter alia, the following important trends: First, international law turns out as increasinlgy irrelevant as a direct constraint on the territorial reach of state law. Second, extraterritoriality to protect local interests is no longer a practice of dominant states alone, as it is more and more widespread. Thus, extraterritoriality can no longer be taken as a synonym for illegitimacy. Third, extraterritoriality more and more occurs to protect international interests or global goods, in particular in criminal law. Each of these findings is further explained and substantiated. The issue of private enforcement, an even more complex and fragmented area of “managing extraterritoriality” is dealt with (“involves the application of local procedural law which injects additional conflict into cases involving  foreign elements on matters including the extent of discovey, the availability of non-compensatory damages, and the use of representative actions, amongst others”) as well as topic of economic sanctions (“one of the most contentious forms of extraterritoriality”). Highly recommended!

Further information as well as a free sample of Part I: General Report will soon be available on the publisher’s website.

The table of contents includes the following contributions:

Part I: General Report

Extraterritoriality in Comparative Context: Defining the Scope of State Law in a Global Era

Hanna L. Buxbaum

Part II: National Reports

Australia

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Danielle Ireland-Piper

Brazil

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

André de Carvalho Ramos / Mariana Sebalhos Jorge

Canada

A Canadian Perspective

John C. Kleefeld

Québec

L’application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Frédérique Sabourin

People’s Republic of China

Extraterritoriality in China

Shiping Liao

Germany

Extraterritoriality in Germany

Sören Segger-Piening

Italy

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Alessandra Zanobetti

Japan

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Hisashi Harata

South Korea

The Extraterritorial Application of Korean Laws

Gyooho Lee

The Netherlands

The Extraterritorial Application of Dutch Statutes and Regulations

Lucas Roorda / Cedric Ryngaert / Timo Zandstra

Romania

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Sergiu Popovici

Taiwan

The Legislative Practice of Extraterritoriality in Statutes and Regulations of Taiwan

Rong-Chwan Chen

United Kingdom (UK)

The Extraterritoriality of Statutes and Regulations

Matteo Angelini

United States (USA)

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Franklin A. Gevurtz

Vietnam

L’Application Extraterritoriale des Lois et Règlements

Quoc Chien Ngo / Duc Vinh Nguyen

Part III: Special Report

European Union

The Extraterritorial Application of Statutes and Regulations

Lena Hornkohl

Part IV: Appendix

Questionnaire

I reviewed the first instance judgment in Clifford Change v SocGen here. Soc Gen have unsuccessfully appealed, see Clifford Chance LLP & Anor v Societe Generale SA (Rev1) [2025] EWCA Civ 14, with Phillips LJ not taking up much space to do so.

Viz the question whether Clifford Change LLP was bound, he holds [46] that the pleaded basis of the core of SocGen’s appeal on this aspect is that the Judge erred as a matter of interpretation (emphasis in the original) of the Framework Agreements, asserting that the Judge failed to give effect to the true intention of the parties (ditto) to those agreements that all Clifford Chance entities would be bound by their terms. [47] ‘However, it is entirely clear that the Judge did not decide the question of whether CC LLP was bound by the Framework Agreements as a matter of interpretation, but on the basis that SocGen did not have a good arguable case that CC LLP was, or became, a party to them.’

In other words SocGen’s appeal was held to be questioning the judge’s factual findings on authority to bind parties, findings which it was not allowed to challenge in the appeal. Entirely obiter, Phillips LJ does review those findings [57] ff, holding obiter [60] that SocGen has failed to demonstrate that that evaluation was plainly wrong.

On Clifford Chance Europe being bound, the grounds of appeal are as follows ([65-66]):

SocGen first challenges the Judge’s assumption that there is no substantive claim against CC Europe. SocGen points out that the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe asserted a claim on the basis that CC Europe was the “dominus litis”, a French law claim based on the concept that CC Europe had a supervisory role in relation to the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. SocGen further emphasises that the Judge did not have evidence of French law in that regard, and that in any event the pleadings in the French proceedings have not closed. SocGen contends that if CC Europe wishes to obtain a negative declaration in respect of its liability for such a claim, it is contractually obliged to do so in France, where proceedings on the same issue are already underway.

The second challenge is to the Judge’s concern that staying CC Europe’s claim in this jurisdiction would lead to a multiplicity and/or a fragmentation of proceedings. SocGen points out that there is already and will continue to be a multiplicity of proceedings, pointing out that (i) that position was caused by the respondents’ decision to seek negative declarations in England when proceedings were being brought in France; and (ii) such multiplicity was foreseeable by the parties when (contrary to SocGen’s case) CC LLP was implicitly retained separately and on different terms as to governing law than had been agreed between CC Europe and SocGen.

However Phillips LJ holds [67] that the Judge was right to find that there are strong reasons not to stay CC Europe’s claim in E&W:

There is no doubt that SocGen’s primary and substantive claim is against CC LLP, being the firm that was retained in relation to the Goldas Litigation and whose actions or inactions are now alleged to have been negligent. That is apparent from the letter of claim addressed to CC Europe, all the faults and negligence alleged being those in the conduct of the Goldas Litigation by CC LLP. The Judge determined that England is the appropriate forum for determination of that dispute. I accept that the Judge may have gone too far in concluding (at this stage and on the evidence before him) that SocGen does not have a genuine claim against CC Europe under French law. But even if there is some parasitic claim against CC Europe based on a “supervisory” role (SocGen having failed to adduce any evidence as to the existence of such a claim, let alone to explain its nature and effect), it is plainly desirable that it be determined in the same proceedings as the dispute between SocGen and CC LLP, namely, in these proceedings in the appropriate forum. There are strong reasons why CC Europe should not be debarred from seeking a declaration together with CC LLP in England, the effect of staying its claim being to require CC Europe to defend itself separately in France in respect of the very actions of CC LLP which will be the subject of these proceedings.

The first hearing in Soc Gen’s French proceedings took place in March 2024. [68] the Court of Appeal suggests a possible course of action for the French Proceedings, both on behalf of SocGen and the French court itself:

It is true that the French proceedings may continue notwithstanding the Judge’s order, and that may be a result of Clifford Chance entities having bifurcated their contractual relations with SocGen and having then initiated proceedings in this jurisdiction. But that is not a sufficient reason to fragment these proceedings before the plainly appropriate forum. There must be a realistic expectation that SocGen, and indeed the French court, will be reluctant to duplicate in France proceedings in England as to the alleged negligent conduct by English solicitors of Commercial Court proceedings in London.

Geert.