Conflict of Laws

The Bee That’s Buzzing in Our Bonnets. Some Thoughts about Characterisation after the ...

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 17:54:47 GMT

Last week, AG Saugsmandsgaard Øe rendered his Opinion on Case C-59/19 Wikingerhof, which we first reported in this post by Krzysztof Pacula. The following post has been written by Michiel Poesen, PhD Candidate at KU Leuven, who has been so kind as to share with us some further thoughts on the underlying problem of characterisation.

Characterisation is not just a bee that has been buzzing in conflicts scholars’ bonnets, as Forsyth observed in his 1998 LQR article. Given its central role in how we have been thinking about conflicts for over a century, it has pride of place in jurisprudence and literature. The Wikingerhof v Booking.com case (C?59/19) is the latest addition to a long string of European cases concerning the characterisation of actions as ‘matters relating to a contract’ under Article 7(1) of the Brussels Ia Regulation n° 1215/2012.

Earlier this week, Krzysztof Pacula surveyed Advocate General Saugsmandsgaard Øe’s opinion in the Wikingerhof case on this blog (Geert Van Calster also wrote about the opinion on his blog). Readers can rely on their excellent analyses of the facts and the AG’s legal analysis. This post has a different focus, though. The Wikingerhof case is indicative of a broader struggle with characterising claims that are in the grey area surrounding a contract. In this post, I would like to map briefly the meandering approaches to characterisation under the contract jurisdiction. Then I would like to sketch a conceptual framework that captures the key elements of characterisation.

1. Not All ‘Matters Relating to a Contract’ Are Created Equal

There are around 30 CJEU decisions concerning the phrase ‘matters relating to a contract’. Three tests for characterisation are discernible in those decisions. In the first approach, characterisation depends on the nature of the legal basis relied on by the claimant. If a claim is based on an obligation freely assumed, then the claim is a matter relating to a contract to which the contract jurisdiction applies. Statutory, fiduciary, or tortious obligations arising due to the conclusion of a contract are also contractual obligations for private international law purposes. I will call this approach the ‘cause of action test’, because it centres on the nature of the cause of action pleaded by the claimant. In recent decisions, for example, the cause of action test has been used to characterise claims between third parties as contractual matters (C-337/17 Feniks, blogged here; C-772/17 Reitbauer, blogged here; joined cases C-274/16, C-447/16 and C-448/16 flightright).

The second approach to characterisation is to focus on the relationship between the litigants. From this standpoint, only claims between litigants who are bound by a contract can be characterised as ‘matters relating to a contract’. This approach has for example been used in the Handte and Réunion européenne decisions. We will call it the ‘privity test’. Sometimes scholars relied on this test to argue that all claims between contracting parties are to be characterised as matters relating to a contract.

The third and final approach emphasises the nature of the facts underlying the claim brought by the claimant. This approach was first developed in the Brogsitter decision (C?548/12). However, it is predated by AG Jacob’s opinions in the Kalfelis (C-189/87) and Shearson Lehmann Hutton (C-89/91) cases (which since have been eagerly picked up by the Bundesgerichtshof of Germany). The Brogsitter decision provided that a claim is a contractual matter if the defendant’s allegedly wrongful behaviour can reasonably be regarded to be a breach of contract, which will be the case if the interpretation of the contract is indispensable to judge. I will dub this approach the ‘factual breach test’, since it directs attention to factual elements such as the defendant’s behaviour and the indispensability to interpret the contract. It is plain to see that this is by far the most complicated of the three approaches to characterisation we discussed here (among other things because of the unclear relation between the different layers of which the test is composed, an issue that AG Saugsmandsgaard Øe entertained in Wikingerhof, [69]–[70], and C-603/17 Bosworth v Arcadia).

The use in practice and literature of the three approaches laid out above demonstrates a tale of casuistry. Similar claims have been subjected to different approaches, and approaches developed in a specific setting have been applied to entirely different contexts. For example, a few CJEU decisions characterised claims between litigants who are not privy to consensual obligations as non-contractual in nature under the privity test. Other decisions characterised such claims as contractual in nature, applying the cause of action test. A similar dichotomy underlies the characterisation of claims between contracting parties. Initially, the CJEU jurisprudence applied the cause of action test, focussing on the nature of the legal basis relied on (see C-9/87 Arcado v Haviland). Later, the Brogsitter decision adopted the factual breach test, which shifted the focus to the nature of the facts underlying the claim.

It is difficult to understand why these divergences have occurred. How can they be explained?

2. The Theories Underlying Characterisation

A good way to start is to conceptualise characterisation further along the lines of this scheme:

Seen from the perspective of this scheme, the previous section described three ‘tests for characterisation’. A ‘test for characterisation’ refers to the interpretational exercise that lays down the conditions under which a claim can be characterised as a matter relating to a contract. Each test elevates different elements of a ‘claim’ as relevant for the purpose of characterisation and disregards others. Those elements are the identity of the litigants, the claim’s legal basis, or the dispute underlying the claim. As such, it concretises an idea about the broader purpose the contract jurisdiction should serve, which is called a ‘theory’. The divergences among the tests for characterisation outlined above is explained by the reliance on different theories.

The AG’s considerations about Brogsitter in the Wikingerhof opinion illustrate the scheme. The AG observed that the factual breach test is informed by what I will dub the ‘natural forum theory’. According to that theory, the contract jurisdiction offers the most appropriate and hence natural forum for all claims that are remotely linked to a contract (for the sake of proximity and avoiding multiple jurisdictional openings over claims relating to the same contract). This theory explains why the factual breach test provides such a broad, hypothetical test for characterisation that captures all claims that could have been pleaded as a breach of contract. Opining against the use of the factual breach test and underlying natural forum theory, the AG suggested that the cause of action test be applied. He then integrated the indispensability to interpret the contract (originally a part of the factual breach test) into the cause of action test as a tool for determining whether a claim is based on contract ([90] et seq). Essentially, his approach was informed by what I will call the ‘ring-fencing theory’. In contrast to the natural forum theory, this theory presumes that the contract jurisdiction should be delineated strictly for two reasons. First, the contract jurisdiction is a special jurisdiction regime that cannot fulfil a broad role as a natural forum contractus ([84]–[85]). Second, a strict delineation promotes legal certainty and efficiency, since it does not require judges to engage in a broad, hypothetical analysis to determine whether a claim is contractual or not ([76]–[77]). The scheme was applied succinctly here, but the analysis could be fleshed out for example by integrating the role of the parallelism between the Brussels Ia and Rome I/II Regulations.

The scheme can be used to understand and evaluate the CJEU’s eventual judgment in Wikingerhof. I hope that the decision will be a treasure trove that furthers our understanding of the mechanics of characterisation in EU private international law.

Festschrift for José María Espinar Vicente

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 13:58:48 GMT

Iprolex has published a Festschrift (in Spanish) in honor of José María Espinar Vicente, entitled “Private International Law Between Tradition and Innovation.” An announcement (in Spanish) is here; the detailed table of contents is here.

Invitation: The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil and ...

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 11:33:12 GMT

xxxxx

The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention:

Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil and
Commercial Matters between the EU and Third Countries

Pre-Conference Video Roundtable
University of Bonn / HCCH

Thursday, 29 October 2020, 6.30 p.m. (UTC+1) (via Zoom)

Speakers:

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH

Colin Brown, Unit Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy, DG Trade, European Commission

Dr Alexandra Diehl, White & Case LLP, Frankfurt, Chair of the Arbitration/Litigation/Mediation (“ALM”) Working Group of the German-American Lawyers Association (DAJV)

Dr Veronika Efremova, Senior Project Manager GIZ, Open Regional Funds for South East Europe-Legal Reform

Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”, European Commission

Dr Jan Teubel, German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection

Moderators:

Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH

Prof Dr Matthias Weller, University of Bonn

The largest proportion of EU economic growth in the 21st century is expected to arise in trade with third countries. This is why the EU is building up trade relations with many states and other regional integration communities in all parts of the world. The latest example is the EU-MERCOSUR Association Agreement concluded on 28 June 2019. With the United Kingdom’s exit of the Union on 31 January 2020, extra-EU trade with neighbouring countries will further increase in importance. Another challenge for the EU is China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a powerful global development strategy that includes overland as well as sea routes in more than 100 states around the globe. The USA are currently the largest trade partner of the EU. The increasing volume of trade with third states will inevitably lead to a rise in the number and importance of commercial disputes. This makes mechanisms for their orderly and efficient resolution indispensable. China is already setting up infrastructures for commercial dispute resolution alongside its belts and roads. In contrast, the EU still seems to be in search of a strategy for judicial cooperation in civil matters with countries outside the Union. The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention may be a valuable tool to establish and implement such a strategy, in particular alongside the EU’s external trade relations. These prospects will be discussed by the speakers and a global audience in this Pre-Conference Video Roundtable.

We warmly invite you to participate and discuss with us. In order to do so, please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. You will receive the access data for the video conference via zoom per email, including our data protection concept, the day before the event.

If you have already registered and received a confirmation from our office (please allow us a couple of days for sending it back to you), your registration is valid and you do not need to re-register.

Please do not hesitate to forward our invitation to friends and colleagues if you wish.

Main Conference “The HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention”, 13 and 14 September 2021

Our event intends to prepare the main conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention at the University of Bonn (Professors Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, Wulf-Henning Roth, Philipp Reuss, Matthias Weller), co-hosted by the HCCH (Dr Chistophe Bernasconi, Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui), on 13 and 14 September 2021 (originally scheduled for 25 and 26 September 2020, but rescheduled to avoid Covid-19 risks). At this conference on the campus of the University of Bonn, leading experts will present on the legal concepts and techniques of the Convention, and policy issues will be further developed.

Speakers will include (listed chronologically):

Hans van Loon (key note), Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Hague;

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam;

Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich;

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan;

Prof Dr Francisco Garcimartín Alférez, Autonomous University of Madrid;

Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH;

Prof Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling;

Prof Dr Marie-Elodie Ancel, University Paris 2 Panthéon-Assas;

Dr Pippa Rogerson, Reader in Private International Law, Faculty of Law, Cambridge;

Ass. Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia;

Dr Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh;

Prof Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle;

Jose Angelo Estrella-Faria, Principal Legal Officer and Head, Legislative Branch International Trade Law Division, Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT.

For the full programme see https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/professur-prof-dr-weller/conference-on-the-hcch-2019-judgments-convention-on-13-and-14-september-2021/. You will receive an invitation for registration in due time. A registration fee of € 100.- will be asked for participating.

Facebook’s further attempts to resist the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia futile

Fri, 18 Sep 2020 08:10:40 GMT

Earlier in the year, Associate Professor Jeanne Huang reported on the Australian Information Commission’s action against Facebook Inc in the Federal Court of Australia. In particular, Huang covered Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc [2020] FCA 531, which concerned an ex parte application for service outside of the jurisdiction and an application for substituted service.

In April, Thawley J granted the Commission leave to serve the first respondent (Facebook Inc) in the United States, and the second respondent (Facebook Ireland Ltd) in the Republic of Ireland. Through orders for substituted service, the Commission was also granted leave to serve the relevant documents by email (with respect to Facebook Inc) and by mail (with respect to Facebook Ireland Ltd).

Facebook Inc applied to set aside the orders for its service in the United States, among other things. Facebook Ireland appeared at the hearing of Facebook Inc’s application seeking equivalent orders, although it did not make submissions.

On 14 September, Thawley J refused that application: Australian Information Commissioner v Facebook Inc (No 2) [2020] FCA 1307. The foreign manifestations of Facebook are subject to the Federal Court’s long-arm jurisdiction.

The decision involves an orthodox application of Australian procedure and private international law. The policy represented by the decision is best understood by brief consideration of the context for this litigation.

Background

The Australian Information Commission is Australia’s ‘independent national regulator for privacy and freedom of information’, which promotes and upholds Australians’ rights to access government-held information and to have their personal information protected.

Those legal rights are not as extensive as equivalent rights enjoyed in other places, like the European Union. Australian law offers minimal constitutional or statutory human rights protection at a federal level. Unlike other common law jurisdictions, Australian courts have been reluctant to recognise a right to privacy. Australians’ ‘privacy rights’, in a positivist sense, exist within a rough patchwork of various domestic sources of law.

One of the few clear protections is the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), (‘Privacy Act’), which (among other things) requires large-ish companies to deal with personal information in certain careful ways, consistent with the ‘Australian Privacy Principles’.

In recent years, attitudes towards privacy and data protection seem to have changed within Australian society. To oversimplify: in some quarters at least, sympathies are becoming less American (ie, less concerned with ‘free speech’ above all else), and more European (ie, more concerned about privacy et al). If that description has any merit, then it would be due to events like the notorious Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is the focus of this litigation.

Various manifestations of Australian governments have responded to changing societal attitudes by initiating law reform inquiries. Notably, in 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’) delivered its final report on its Digital Platforms Inquiry, recommending that Australian law be reformed to better address ‘the implications and consequences of the business models of digital platforms for competition, consumers, and society’. The broad-ranging inquiry considered overlapping issues in data protection, competition and consumer protection—including reform of the Privacy Act. The Australian Government agreed with the ACCC that Australian privacy laws ought to be strengthened ‘to ensure they are fit for purpose in the digital age’. A theme of this report is that the foreign companies behind platforms like Facebook should be better regulated to serve the interests of Australian society.

Another important part of the context for this Facebook case is Australia’s media environment. Australia’s ‘traditional’ media companies—those that produce newspapers and television—are having a hard time. Their business models have been undercut by ‘digital platforms’ like Facebook and Google. Many such traditional media companies are owned by News Corp, the conglomerate driven by sometime-Australian Rupert Murdoch (who is responsible for Fox News. On behalf of Australia: sorry everyone). These companies enjoy tremendous power in the Australian political system. They have successfully lobbied the Australian government to force the foreign companies behind digital platforms like Google to pay Australian companies for news.

All of this is to say: now more than ever, there is regulatory appetite and political will in Australia to hold Facebook et al accountable.

Procedural history

Against that backdrop, in March 2020, the Commission commenced proceedings against each of the respondents in the Federal Court, alleging ‘that the personal information of Australian Facebook users was disclosed to the This is Your Digital Life app for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was collected, in breach of the Privacy Act’.

The Commissioner alleges that:

Facebook disclosed the users’ personal information for a purpose other than that for which it was collected, in breach Australian Privacy Principle (‘APP’) 6;
Facebook failed to take reasonable steps to protect the users’ personal information from unauthorised disclosure in breach of APP 11.1(b); and
these breaches amounted to serious and/or repeated interferences with the privacy of the users, in contravention of s 13G of the Privacy Act.

In April, the service orders reported by Huang were made. Facebook Inc and Facebook Ireland were then served outside of the jurisdiction.

Facebook’s challenge to the orders for service outside of the jurisdiction: ‘no prima facie case’

Facebook Inc contended that service should be set aside because the Court should not be satisfied that there was a prima facie case for the relief claimed by the Commissioner as required by r 10.43(4)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).

The Court summarised the principles applicable to setting aside an order as to service as follows (at [23]):

An application for an order discharging an earlier order granting leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, or for an order setting aside such service, is in the nature of a review by way of rehearing of the original decision to grant leave to serve out of the jurisdiction.
It is open to the party who sought and obtained an order for service out of the jurisdiction to adduce additional evidence, and make additional submissions.
The onus remains on the applicant in the proceedings to satisfy the Court in light of the material relied upon, including any additional material relied upon, that leave ought to have been granted.

Facebook Inc accepted that although demonstrating a prima facie case is ‘not particularly onerous’, the Commissioner had failed to establish an arguable case; she had merely posited ‘inferences’ which did not reasonably arise from the material tendered: [28]-[29].

As noted above, the underlying ‘case’ that was the subject of that argument is in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and alleged breaches of the Privacy Act.

The case thus turns on application of an Australian statute to seemingly cross-border circumstances. Rather than having regard to forum choice-of-law rules, the parties seemingly accepted that the case turns on statutory interpretation. The extra-territorial application of the Privacy Act depends on an organisation having an ‘Australian Link’. Section 5B(3) relevantly provides:

(3) An organisation or small business operator also has an Australian link if all of the following apply: …

(b) the organisation or operator carries on business in Australia or an external Territory;

(c) the personal information was collected or held by the organisation or operator in Australia or an external Territory, either before or at the time of the act or practice.

Facebook Inc argued that the Commissioner failed to establish a prima facie case that, at the relevant time, Facebook Inc:

carried on business in Australia within the meaning of s 5B(3)(b) of the Privacy Act; or
collected or held personal information in Australia within the meaning of s 5B(3)(c) of the Privacy Act.

Facebook Inc carries on business in Australia

In Tiger Yacht Management Ltd v Morris (2019) 268 FCR 548 (noted here), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia ‘observed that the expression “carrying on business” may have a different meaning in different contexts and that, where used to ensure jurisdictional nexus, the meaning will be informed by the requirement for there to be sufficient connection with the country asserting jurisdiction’: [40].

The Court considered the statutory context of the Commissioner’s case, being the application of Australian privacy laws to foreign entities. The Court had regard to the objects of the Privacy Act, which include promotion of the protection of privacy of individuals and responsible and transparent handling of personal information by entities: Privacy Act s 2A(b), (d). Whether Facebook Inc ‘carries on business in Australia’ for the purposes of the Privacy Act is a factual inquiry that should be determined with reference to those broader statutory purposes.

The Commissioner advanced several arguments in support of the proposition that Facebook Inc carries on business in Australia.

One argument advanced by the Commissioner was that Facebook Inc had financial control of foreign subsidiaries carrying on business in Australia, suggesting that the parent company was carrying on business in Australia. (Cf Tiger Yacht, above.) That argument was rejected: [155].

Another argument turned on agency more explicitly. Essentially, the Commissioner sought to pierce the corporate veil by arguing Facebook is ‘a single worldwide business operated by multiple entities’: [75]. Those entities contract with one another so that different aspects of the worldwide business are attributed to different entities, but the court ought to pierce the jurisdictional veil. The Commissioner submitted that ‘the performance pursuant to the contractual arrangements by Facebook Inc of functions necessary for Facebook Ireland to provide the Facebook service…, including in Australia, indicated that Facebook Ireland was a convenient entity through which Facebook Inc carried on business in Australia during the relevant period’: [115].

Facebook Inc appealed to cases like Adams v Cape Industries [1990] 1 Ch 433, where the English Court of Appeal explained that, typically, a company would not be considered to be carrying on business within the forum unless: ‘(a) it has a fixed place of business of its own in this country from which it has carried on business through servants or agents, or (b) it has had a representative here who has had the power to bind it by contract and who has carried on business at or from a fixed place of business in this country’ (at 529). (See also Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch).)

Ultimately, the Court was not satisfied that Facebook Inc carried on business within Australia on the basis that Facebook Ireland conducted Facebook Inc’s business in Australia: [117]. More accurately, the Commissioner had not established a prima facie case to that effect.

But the Commissioner had established a prima facie case that Facebook Inc directly carried on business within Australia.

Facebook Inc is responsible for various ‘processing operations’ in relation to the Facebook platform, which includes responsibility for installing, operating and removing cookies on the devices of Australian users. Facebook Inc appealed to case authority to argue that this activity did not amount to carrying on business in Australia. The Court thus considered cases like Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 and Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2017) 258 FCR 190, which each addressed the territorial aspects of businesses that depend on communication on the internet.

The Court rejected Facebook Inc’s argument that ‘installing’ cookies is to be regarding as equivalent to uploading and downloading a document (cf Gutnick). At the interlocutory stage of the proceeding, there was not enough evidence to accept Facebook Inc’s claim; but there was enough to draw the inference that the installation and operation of cookies within Australia involves activity in Australia.

The Court concluded: ‘the Commissioner has discharged her onus of establishing that it is arguable, and the inference is open to be drawn, that some of the data processing activities carried on by Facebook Inc can be regarded as having occurred in Australia, notwithstanding that the evidence did not establish that any employee of Facebook Inc was physically located in Australia’: [137]. It was thus concluded that the Commissioner had established a prima facie case that Facebook Inc carried on business within Australia: [156]. (Cf the reasoning of Canadian courts that led to Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc [2017] 1 SCR 824, noted here.)

Facebook Inc collected or held personal information in Australia

The Court was assisted by responses provided by Facebook Inc to questions of the Commissioner made pursuant to her statutory powers of investigation. One question concerned the location and ownership of servers used to provide the Facebook service. Although Facebook Inc’s answer was somewhat equivocal, it suggested that the platform depends on servers located in Australia (including network equipment and caching servers) to improve connection and delivery time. This was enough for the Court to make the relevant inference as to collection and holding of personal information within Australia: [170].

The Court had regard to the purposes manifested by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Privacy Act in concluding that ‘the fact that the personal information is uploaded in Australia and stored on Australian users’ devices and browser caches and on caching servers arguably owned or operated by Facebook Inc in Australia, it is arguable that Facebook Inc collected the personal information in Australia’: [185].

Combined with the findings as to carrying on business, this was enough to establish a prima facie case that the extra-territorial application of the Privacy Act was engaged. The Court’s orders as to service were not disturbed.

Concluding remarks

The interlocutory character of this decision should be emphasised. The Court’s findings on the territorial aspects of ‘carrying on business’ and data collection were each subject to the ‘prima facie case’ qualification. These are issues of fact; the Court may find differently after a thorough ventilation of evidence yet to be adduced.

This decision is not anomalous. The assertion of long-arm jurisdiction over Facebook Inc indicates Australian courts’ increasing willingness to pierce the jurisdictional veil for pragmatic ends. In my experience, most Australian lawyers do not really care about the multilateralist ideals of many private international law enthusiasts. The text of the Australian statutes that engage the case before them is paramount. Lawyers are directed to consider the text of the statute in light of its context and purpose: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King (2020) 94 ALJR 293, [23]; Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA. Essentially, in the case of a forum statute with putative extraterritorial operation, a form of interest analysis is mandated.

I am OK with this. If the policy of the Privacy Act is to have any chance of success, it depends on its application to internet intermediaries comprised of corporate groups with operations outside of Australia. As an island continent in a technologically interconnected world, the policy of Australian substantive law will increasingly determine the policy of Australian private international law.

Michael Douglas is Senior Lecturer at UWA Law School and Consultant at Bennett + Co, Perth.

Uruguay: General Law of Private International Law Project about to be passed into Law

Thu, 17 Sep 2020 20:54:51 GMT

The new Uruguayan General Law of Private International Law has passed the Senate and will now be submitted to the House of Representatives. This means that a project that was initiated in 1994 by Didier Opertti Badán will finally come to fruition. ASADIP’s blog provides a note by Cecilia Fresnedo that lays out, in Spanish, the arduous path that the project took between 1994 and now. It is also possible to download the draft legislation.

Despite its small size, Uruguay has long been one of the leaders of private international law in Latin America, and has been highly regarded worldwide. Cecilia Fresnedo reported on the project last year at a conference on the role of academia in Latin American private international law at the Max Planck Institute; she has written on Uruguayan Private International Law – Past and Future in the Festschrift for Herbert Kronke that came out earlier this year. The 2016 draft of the law is here; an appreciation by José Antonio Tomás Ortíz de la Torre is here.

Child Abduction Convention case and national procedural provisions determining who can be a ...

Wed, 16 Sep 2020 11:08:37 GMT

Is a national procedural provision determining who can act as a party to the proceedings capable of temporarily preventing the return of a child ordered within the framework of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention? This question has been recently answered in the affirmative, as illustrated by the recent developments in a case being currently under scrutiny of both the Polish Constitutional and Supreme Courts.

Context of the case…

A child is born in Poland. Soon after her birth, her mother takes her to Belgium where the child’s father lives. The couple separates when the girl is one year old. The woman and her daughter return to Poland.

A procedure conducted within the framework of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention is pending before a Polish District Court since December 2017. By its decision of January 2018, the District Court orders the return of the child. An appeal against the decision is dismissed by a Regional Court in June 2018.

After the expiration of a delay for the voluntary return of the child, the father lodges an application for a forced return. The application succeeds and the proceedings for the enforcement of the return are initialized. The return of the child, however, does not happen.

As we learn from media coverage of the case at hand, in November 2019, a Belgian court grants exclusive parental care to the father. In what can only be considered as a sudden and tragic event, the day before that ruling was delivered, the child’s mother had passed away. From then on, the girl’s grandmother takes care of her.

The child’s grandmother lodges an application to join the proceedings in which the decisions of January and June 2018 were adopted. In parallel, she lodges an application to join the proceedings on the enforcement of the return. It is being argued that the grandmother is the child’s closest known relative and her factual caretaker and as such she fulfills the requirements needed to be considered as an ‘interested person’ within the meaning of Article 510(1) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. According to that provision ‘[a]n interested person is anyone whose rights are affected by the outcome of proceedings; such person may join the case at any stage before it is closed at second instance. On joining the case an interested person becomes a party. An order refusing to allow an interested person to join the case may be appealed’.

The application to join the proceedings in which the decisions of January and June 2018 were handed down is dismissed in January 2020. It is decided that the grandmother lacks ‘legal interest’ to join the proceedings as the outcome of these proceedings does not concern her rights. The appeal brought against this decision is dismissed in June 2020.

… brought before the Constitutional Court …

The grandmother’s legal counsels lodge a constitutional complaint before the Polish Constitutional Court. Under Polish law, a constitutional compliant allows to challenge a provision that served as a basis for a final decision on the applicant’s freedoms, rights or obligations specified in the Constitution and to request a determination of that provision’s non-conformity with the Constitution.

In the constitution complaint in question, the grandmother’s counsels are challenging the aforementioned Article 510(1) of the Polish Code of Civil Procedure. They argue that by not allowing for the participation in the proceedings of the child’s grandmother, her relative and sole factual caretaker, this procedural provision violates, inter alia, the applicant’s dignity (Article 30 of the Polish Constitution), right to legal protection of her family life (Article 47 read in conjunction with Article 18 of the Constitution according to which ‘family’ – alongside ‘marriage’, ‘motherhood’ and ‘parenthood’ – shall be placed under the protection and care of the Republic of Poland) as well as the right to a fair trial not barring access to legal protection enshrined in Articles 45(1) and 77(2).

According to the statement of reasons for the complaint, the procedural provision in question is preventing the grandmother from initiating proceedings allowing to determine her rights and from being heard within the proceedings initiated at the request of other applicants. Against this background, while the decision of June 2018 is final, in its judgment of 22 November 2017, III CZP 78/17, the Polish Supreme Court considered that even a final decision ordering the return of a child may be amended, if the best interests of the child concerned so require. It is however unclear whether this is exactly the legal route that the child’s grandmother is intending to take.

The constitutional complaint is not directly arguing that the aforementioned procedural provision violates Article 72 of the Polish Constitution which serves as an equivalent of the ‘child’s best interest clause’ known from legal instruments (still, one should keep in mind that the grandmother is the applicant, not the child). Yet, alongside the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the EU [see its Article 24(2)] and Article 3(1) of the UN Convention on the Rights of Children, Article 72 is invoked in the statement of reasons for the complaint.

Interestingly, in the constitutional complaint, the applicant’s counsels are asking for a suspension of the execution of the decision of January 2018 by which the return of the child was ordered. According to the Act of 30 November 2016 on the Organisation of the Constitutional Court and the Mode of Proceedings Before the Constitutional Court and – more precisely – its article 79(1), ‘[the Constitutional Court] may issue a provisional decision about the suspension of the execution of a determination in the case with regard to which a constitutional complaint has been lodged with the [Court], if the execution of a judgment […] could cause irreversible consequences resulting in serious damage for the complainant, or when the said suspension is justified by an important public interest or a different important interest of the applicant’.

In the reported case, the counsels argue that the return of the child would lead to irreversible consequences for the applicant. Irrespectively of the outcome of the constitutional complaint, the return of the child would provoke a total destruction of her family life in its present form. Given the profound emotional relation with the child, the child’s return would be an intolerable damage to the applicant’s dignity and integrity as human being. Moreover, according to the counsels, an important public interest also pleads in favour of the suspension. The child is deeply integrated in her social and family environment and she does not speak the language her father uses, while the latter does not speak Polish.

By its order handed down in late August 2020, the Constitutional Court suspends the enforcement of the decision ordering the return of the child to Belgium, at least until the final ruling on the constitutional complaint is delivered in the case now enregistered under no. SK 76/20.

… as well as before the Supreme Court

While it is not the object of our main interest here, it is worth noticing that back in June 2020, an ‘extraordinary complaint’ was introduced by the General Public Prosecutor against the decision handed down by the Regional Court in June 2018.

An ‘extraordinary complaint’, introduced back in 2018, may be lodged by the selected public authorities before the Supreme Court to challenge a final judgment.

As we learn from the press release of the Prosecutor’s office, the ‘extraordinary complaint’ at hand seemingly challenges the decision of June 2018 on account of incorrect assessment of the Regional Court that the return of the child would not result in a psychological harm and not place her in an intolerable situation. That arguably incorrect assessment lead to a manifestly incorrect application of Article 13(b) of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention. Moreover, it seems that it is being argued that a child’s return can be ordered only after a thorough examination of the child’s situation and the exclusion of circumstances in which there would be a serious risk that the return of the child would expose him/her to physical or mental harm or otherwise place him/her in an intolerable situation. Failing such examination, an order violates the constitutional incarnation of ‘child’s best interest clause’ (Article 72 of the Polish Constitution).

Mandatory Mediation Process Has Been Introduced in Turkey Relating to Certain Consumer Disputes

Tue, 15 Sep 2020 14:10:21 GMT

The Law Amending the Civil Procedure Law and Certain Laws No. 7251 has entered into force on 28 July 2020 and has amended the Consumer Protection Law No. 6502. Accordingly, a mandatory mediation process has been implemented under Article 73/A of the Consumer Protection Law as a prerequisite to file a lawsuit relating to consumer disputes having a monetary claim of 10,390 Turkish Liras and above. Provisional Article 2 of the Consumer Protection Law excludes the application of this mandatory mediation rule to cases pending before the first instance and the regional courts of appeal as well as the Court of Cassation, as of the date of entry into force of this amendment.

The amendment in the Consumer Protection Law further envisages exceptions to the said mandatory mediation process. Pursuant Article 73/A/2 of the Consumer Protection Law, disputes within the competence of consumer arbitration tribunals and the objections made against the decisions of the tribunal, interim injunctions, disputes regarding the suspension of production or sales of goods or recalling of the goods from the market and disputes having a nature of a consumer transaction and arising from rights in rem in relation to a immovable property are not subjected to this mandatory mediation process. It is important to add that pursuant Consumer Protection Law certain consumer disputes are envisaged to be resolved through a mandatory consumer arbitration process.

Under Turkish law, a mandatory mediation condition has also been envisaged relating to commercial disputes and certain employment disputes. In relation to commercial disputes, Turkish Commercial Code Article 5/A is the relevant piece of legislation. It is clearly regulated under this article that as of 01.01.2019, completing the mandatory mediation process prior to court proceedings is a prerequisite for the commercial disputes relating to receivables and compensation of a sum. Relating to employment disputes, the relevant piece of legislation regarding the prerequisite of mediation is the Law on Labour Courts numbered 7036. Pursuant Article 3/1 of the said law, in relation to legal disputes relating to employee or employer receivables, compensation and reemployment based on law or individual or collective bargaining agreements, having applied to the mediation process prior to court proceedings is regulated as a prerequisite. This procedural requirement does not apply to pecuniary and non-pecuniary compensation claims arising from work accident or occupational disease and declaratory and recourse actions as well as objections related to such claims pursuant Article 3/3 of the Law on Labour Courts.

It is also important to note that pursuant Article 18/A/11 of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes, in the event that the mediation process is ended due to the absence of one of the parties in the first meeting without a valid excuse, that party shall be liable from the costs of litigation; whilst the attorney fees cannot be claimed from the other party even where this party eventually partially or completely succeeds in the relevant case. Nevertheless, in relation to consumer disputes, the recent amendment under the Consumer Protection Law envisages an exception under Article 73/A and provides that where the consumer does not attend the first meeting of the mediation process without a valid excuse he/she shall not be liable of the legal costs and the fees of his/her attorney can be collected from the other party where he/she receives a judgement in his/her favour.

Pursuant the lex fori principle, where a dispute involving a foreign element is brought before a Turkish court, the prerequisite of having completed the mandatory mediation process shall be fulfilled pursuant the aforementioned laws in relation to consumer, commercial and employment disputes. Where the parties fail to fulfill this prerequisite and initiate court proceedings in the absence of a pre-trial mediation process, the case will be dismissed with no further action pursuant Article 18/A/2 of the Law on Mediation in Civil Disputes.

US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the US Supreme Court and the Hague Service Convention: is ...

Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:50:28 GMT

Written by Danilo Ruggero Di Bella,
attorney-at-law (Bottega DI BELLA), member of the Madrid Bar and the Canadian Institute for International Law Expertise (CIFILE)

The USA is a Contracting Party to the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”, which it ratified in 1967. The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral treaty whose purpose is to simplify, standardize, and generally expedite the process of serving documents abroad, thus it plays a central role in international litigation. The Hague Service Convention specifies several allowed methods of service to provide due notice of a proceeding in one Contracting State to a party in another.
The primary method (and main alternative to service through diplomatic channels) — laid out in Articles 2 to 7 of the Convention — is via a designated Central Authority in each Contracting State. When a Central Authority receives a request for service, it must serve the documents or arrange for their service. This method is usually faster than service through diplomatic and consular agents (which remain available under Article 8 of the Convention), along with the possibility that two or more Contracting States may agree to permit channels of transmission of judicial documents other than those provided for in the Convention.
Further, at Article 19 the Convention clarifies that it does not preempt any internal laws of its Contracting States that permit service from abroad via methods not otherwise allowed by the Convention. Thus, it could be argued that a sort of favor summonitio (borrowed by the principle of favor contractus) permeates the entire instrument, in that the Convention strikes a fair balance between the formal notice of a proceeding and the validity of an effective summon in favor of the latter, to allow for swift international litigations. Indeed, another fast method of service expressly approved by the Convention is through postal channels, unless the receiving State objects by making a reservation to Article 10(a) of the Convention. This is considered the majority view shared by multiple jurisdictions. However, in the United States different interpretations existed on this point, because Article 10(a) of the Convention does not expressly refer to “service” of judicial documents (it instead uses the term “send”). Consequently, it was an unsettled question whether Article 10(a) encompassed sending documents by postal channels abroad for the purpose of service, until the US Supreme Court has been called to interpret this instrument.
US Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention
The USA did not make any reservation objecting to service by mail under Article 10 of the Convention. In Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), the US Supreme Court pronounced itself on Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention to resolve these conflicting views, according to some of which the Convention was to be read as prohibiting service by mail.
After a detailed contextual treaty interpretation and also a comparison of the text with the French version (equally authentic), the US Supreme Court found that that Article 10(a) unmistakably allows for service by mail. The Supreme Court further clarified that “this does not mean that the Convention affirmatively authorizes service by mail.” It held that “in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.” This means that it is not The Hague Service Convention to authorize service by mail, but it must be the lex fori to do so (the Convention simply permits service by mail). So, where the Convention applies, it is not enough to make sure that a summon effectuated abroad is valid under the Convention just because that foreign jurisdiction allows for service by international registered mail. It further must be ascertained that the jurisdiction in which the case is pending authorizes service by mail requiring a signed receipt. However, by a simple reading of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is possible to note how this set of rules misunderstood the scope of The Hague Service Convention.

The US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Service Convention
In cases pending before a US federal court where the Hague Convention applies and where the foreign jurisdiction (in which the defendant resides or is registered) allows for service by mail, the plaintiff – who serves the defendant abroad – should further wonder whether US Federal law authorizes serving the defendant in a foreign country by mail.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), dealing with summons, answers this question. In particular, Rule 4(h)(2) FRCP deals with serving a corporation abroad by remanding to Rule 4(f) FRCP, which in turn deals with serving an individual. So, the same rule applies to serving either an individual or a corporation abroad. Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP makes express reference to the Hague Service Convention:
“(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;”
However, as stated by the US Supreme Court in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, the fact that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention encompasses service by mail does not mean that it affirmatively authorizes such service. Rather, service by mail is permissible if the receiving State has not objected to service by mail and if such service is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.
Probably, the words “[…]as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;” in Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP should be more correctly rephrased with “[…]as those allowed by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;” in order to be in line with the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court.
So, as Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP does not provide the final answer, the plaintiff needs to look at Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) FRCP, which expressly authorizes the use of any form of mail that requires a signed receipt.
Hence, in cases pending before a federal US court where the Hague Service Convention applies and the receiving states permits service by mail, a plaintiff may serve a company or an individual abroad by means of international registered mail by virtue of Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) FRCP (rather than Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP remanding to The Hague Service Convention). Consequently, the FRCP should be amended to avoid further misunderstandings as to the scope of application of the Hague Service Convention by replacing the word authorized with the term allowed at Rule 4(f)(1).

Recognition under Article 27/A of the Law on Civil Registry Services

Tue, 15 Sep 2020 13:37:28 GMT

Article 27/A of Law on Civil Registry Services provides an exception to the recognition and enforcement regime under Turkish law. Foreign decisions that shall be subjected to the recognition process envisaged under Article 27/A of the Law on Civil Registry Services are specified as those relating to divorce, annulment or nullity of a marriage or a declaratory action to show the existence or non-existence of a marriage. In this regard, the decisions relating to custody, child maintenance, marital property or compensation shall not be given any effect pursuant this new process under Article 27/A of Law on Civil Registry Services. “Regulation on Registration of Decisions Rendered by Administrative or Judicial Authorities to Civil Registry” (Regulation) further stipulates conditions required for a divorce decision to be recognised pursuant this new process.

For the realisation of the recognition under this process, the foreign decision on the aforementioned subject matters, shall be final and rendered by a duly authorised administrative or judicial authority. Where the foreign divorce decision is manifestly contrary to Turkish public policy, it shall not be recognised. Finally, there shall not be any ongoing legal proceedings or dismissed claims relating to the decision which is subjected to recognition pursuant Article 27/A of the Law on Civil Registry. Where the conditions under Article 27/A are not fulfilled and hence the registration request at the civil registry is denied, recognition proceedings may be initiated before Turkish courts pursuant the Turkish Private International Law and International Civil Procedure Code (PIL Code).

When compared with the recognition and enforcement regime under the PIL Code, two significant differences are particularly noticed. Firstly, through this new process the foreign decision is given an affect outside of the court proceedings, though a direct amendment made at the civil registry provided that the aforementioned conditions are fulfilled. In order to be able to make the amendment regarding their civil status, the parties, their legal representors or attorneys shall apply to the civil registrar either together or separately provided that there shall not be more than 90 days between the separate applications of each party or their representatives.

Secondly, the administrative decisions may also be recognized in Turkey pursuant this process. In principle, pursuant Article 50 of the PIL Code, there needs to be a court decree as a pre-requisite for recognition of a foreign decision and thus, the administrative decisions will not be recognised in Turkey. Indeed, prior to Article 27/A being implemented, foreign divorce decisions rendered by foreign municipalities were refused to be enforced in Turkey. Non-recognition of foreign municipality decisions caused criticism amongst Turkish legal scholars. Whilst this exception regarding recognition of administrative decisions under Article 27/A of the Law on Civil Registry is considered as a positive development certain issues are open for discussion. Amongst the issues that raised doctrinal discussions are the appeal procedure regarding the registration made at the civil registry made pursuant this process and the interpretation of public policy exception by the civil registrar bearing in mind that Turkish statutory sources do not provide a definition for Turkish public policy and that interference of public policy requires a complex legal reasoning. Finally, the legal nature of the process under Article 27/A is also argued as to whether it may be considered as a recognition decision in its technical sense.

Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe on characterisation of an action relating to abuse of dominant ...

Mon, 14 Sep 2020 10:16:42 GMT

An action brought between parties to a contract in a scenario where the consent to at least some of the contractual terms was allegedly expressed by the plaintiff only on account of the dominant position of the defendant is to be considered as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to contract’ [Article 7(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation] or within the concept of ‘matters relating to delict or quasi-delict’ [Article 7(2) of the Regulation]?

In his Opinion delivered last Thursday, 10 September 2020, Advocate General Saugmandsgaard Øe addresses that question for the purposes of the reference for a preliminary ruling in the case C-59/19, Wikingerhof.

Legal and factual context

A company established under German law and operating a hotel in this Member State, Wikingerhof GmbH & Co KG, signs a contract with Booking.com BV, a company which its registered office in the Netherlands that operates a hotel reservation platform. On the basis of the contract, the hotel is to be listed on that platform. The general terms and conditions that are supposed to apply to the contract contain a clause according to which the place of jurisdiction for all disputes arising from that contract, with the exception of payment and invoice disputes, is Amsterdam.

Wikingerhof brings and action for cessation against Booking.com before German courts and argues that it expressed its consent to at least to some of the contractual terms only on account of the dominant position of the defendant. The plaintiff views some of the practices of the defendant in connection with hotel reservation intermediation as an infringement of competition law. It seeks an order restraining the defendant from carrying on with these practices.

The defendant objects, inter alia, to the jurisdiction of the courts seised in the matter. The first instance court agrees and rules the action inadmissible. It considers that the parties have concluded an agreement conferring jurisdiction and as a consequence the action should have been brought before the courts in Amsterdam.

The second instance court dealing with an appeal brought by the plaintiff also views the action as inadmissible, yet on the different grounds.

It considers that the German courts do not have jurisdiction under Articles 7(1) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. For the second instance court, the action seeks to change the content of the contract and to alter the defendant’s practices. The action in question should therefore receive a contractual qualification, yet ‘the place of performance’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Regulation is not situated in Germany. For that court, the question of whether an effective agreement conferring jurisdiction was entered into is therefore irrelevant. It seems that this court considers that under no circumstances the German courts hold jurisdiction over the action brought by the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the case comes before the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof). The latter considers that the parties have not entered into an effective agreement conferring jurisdiction. The requirements relating to the form of such agreement, set in Article 25(1)(a) and (2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation have not been met. However, the Federal Court of Justice refers a preliminary question relating to the characterization of the action brought by the plaintiff:

‘Is Article 7(2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that jurisdiction for matters relating to tort or delict exists in respect of an action seeking an injunction against specific practices if it is possible that the conduct complained of is covered by contractual provisions, but the applicant asserts that those provisions are based on an abuse of a dominant position on the part of the defendant?’

Opinion of Advocate General

According to the Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe, a civil liability action based on a breach of competition law falls within the scope of ‘matters relating to delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, also when the plaintiff and the defendant are parties to a contract and the alleged anticompetitive conduct materializes itself in their contractual relationship.

The analysis that precedes this conclusion begins with an observation that the action brought by the plaintiff in the main proceedings is ‘based’ on the violation of the rules of German law prohibiting, like Article 102 TFEU, abuse of dominant position (point 19).

Next, the Opinion acknowledges that while it results from the case-law that the actions on anticompetitive conducts – including those constituting an infringement under Article 102 TFEU – fall within the scope of Article 7(2) of the Regulation, the particularity of the proceedings at hand stem from the fact that the alleged anticompetitive conduct occurred within the context of a contractual relationship (point 26).

After that, a reminder of case-law on Article 7(1) and (2) of the Regulation leads the AG to the judgments in Kalfelis and Brogsitter. Concerning the latter, he considers that two interpretations of the judgment are a priori possible (point 68). First, which the AG describes as ‘maximalist’, would imply that an action based on delict falls under the concept of ‘matter relating to contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) if the action concerns a harmful event that could (also) constitute a breach of a contractual obligation. In other terms, a national court would have to verify whether an action could also have been brought on the basis of breach of a contractual obligation. For the AG, that interpretation would imply that the contractual characterisation of a claim prevails over its characterisation as a matter relating to delict (point 69).

The AG rejects such ‘maximalist’ interpretation. First, an analysis allowing to establish a potential breach of a contractual obligation would be too burdensome at the stage where the jurisdiction is determined and could require consideration of the substance of the case (point 76). Next, under the Regulation, no hierarchy exists between the rules on jurisdiction provided for in Articles 7(1) and (2) (point 79). In this context, the AG resorts to an argument based on the idea that the solution adopted in relation to the rules on jurisdiction would have to be followed in relation to the conflict-of-laws rules of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations: the contractual characterisation would have to prevail also under these Regulations (points 81 and 82).

As a consequence, the AG pronounces himself in favour of a second interpretation of the judgment in Brogsitter that he describes as a ‘minimalist’ one. Here, an action would fall within the scope of Article 7(1) of the Regulation where ‘the interpretation of the contract […] is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the [defendant] by the [plaintiff]’ (point 70).

At points 90 et seq., the AG describes the method of characterisation that results from his ‘minimalist’ interpretation of the judgment in Brogsitter. He discusses the cases where a plaintiff invokes rules of substantive law in his submission of action and where he or she does not – according to the AG, in the latter scenario, his method does not change fundamentally. He argues that on the basis of other elements of the submission of action, a judge has to identify the ‘obligation’ relied on by the plaintiff (point 96).

At points 100 and 101, the AG furtherly explains and recaps the method: where the plaintiff invokes, in his submission of an action, rules of substantive law imposing a duty on everyone and it does not appear ‘indispensable’ to establish the content of a contract in order to assess the lawful or unlawful nature of the conduct alleged against the defendant, the action is based on a non-contractual obligation (the Opinion uses the term ‘obligation délictuelle’) and therefore falls within the scope of ‘matters relating to delict or quasi-delict’ within the meaning of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. However, where, irrespective of the rules of law relied on, a judge can assess the legality of the conduct only by reference to a contract, the action is essentially based on a ‘contractual obligation’ and therefore falls within the scope of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) of the Regulation.

It is yet to be seen to what extent the importance of the rules of substantive law invoked by a plaintiff will play a role in the future judgment of the Court. In any case, on the basis of these findings, the AG concludes that the contractual characterisation of the action brought by the plaintiff before the German courts should be rejected.

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

On a side note…

The lecture of the Opinion presented above raises a point that could on its own inspire an interesting discussion. It seems that, for the AG, what is true under the Brussels regime, should also stand as true under the Rome I and II Regulation. In fact, an argument relating to the consistency between the solutions adopted with regards to the Brussels I bis and Rome I/II Regulations is invoked in the Opinion in order to reject the interpretation which, for the AG, would imply the priority of contractual characterisation over non-contractual characterisation (see points 81 and 82).

Against this background, in his Opinion in Bosworth and Hurley (points 91 to 103), AG Saugmandsgaard Øe seemed to consider that the contractual characterisation of an action should be favoured over the non-contractual characterisation where an individual contract of employment is at stake. That consideration was made in relation to the rules of jurisdiction and more precisely – to Article 18 of Lugano II Convention. As it was not necessary to answer the preliminary question that inspired the aforementioned considerations of the AG, the Court did not have an opportunity to clarify in its Judgment whether such preference of contractual characterisation does indeed occur.

Yet, if that is the case and the argument on the consistency of solutions adopted under the Regulations is valid, should the Rome I and II Regulations be read as implying a priority (or even exclusivity) of a contractual characterisation also for the conflict-of-laws purposes in a situation where a harmful conduct concerns employee – employer scenario?