This report was kindly prepared by Federica Simonelli, a research fellow funded by the P.O.N. UNI4Justice project at the University of Trento, Italy, and a member of the editorial staff of Giustizia consensuale (Consensual Justice).

On 10 June 2022, the University of Trento, Faculty of Law celebrated the first anniversary of the launch of Giustizia consensuale, founded and edited by Professor Silvana Dalla Bontà and Professor Paola Lucarelli.

In recent years, the debate surrounding consensual justice and party autonomy has received increasing attention in the national and international arenas and has raised a broad array of questions. What is the very meaning of consensual justice? Is the idea of consensual justice feasible? What is its role in a globalized world increasingly characterized by cross-border disputes? The rationale behind Giustizia consensuale lies in the pressing need to observe this phenomenon from different perspectives.

For those who did not have the opportunity to attend this informative event, this report offers a succinct overview of the topics and ideas exchanged during this well-attended, hybrid conference.

First session

Opening the symposium with an incisive preamble, Professor Silvana Dalla Bontà (University of Trento, Italy), editor-in-chief of Giustizia consensuale and chair of the first session, provided a context for the reasoning behind this new editorial project and some of the research areas it intends to focus on. Notably, with the aim of meeting the needs of an increasingly complicated and multi-faceted society, Giustizia consensuale endeavours to investigate the meaning of consensual justice, its relationship with judicial justice, and the potential for integrating, rather than contrasting, these two forms of justice.

Professor Dalla Bontà’s introductory remarks were followed by Professor Paola Lucarelli (University of Florence, Italy), co-editor of the Giustizia consensuale, on the topic of Mediating conflict: a generous push towards change, strongly reaffirming the importance of promoting and strengthening consensual justice instruments, not only to reduce the judicial backlog but also to empower the parties to self-tailor the solution of their conflict, by fostering responsibility, self-determination, awareness, and trust.

Professor Francesco Paolo Luiso (University of Pisa, Italy – Academician of the Order of Lincei) then proceeded to effectively illustrate the essential role played by lawyers in changing the traditional paradigm of dispute resolution which sees court adjudication as the main (if not, the sole) way of settling disputes. Conversely, the judicial function is a precious resource, and its use must be limited to instances where the exercise of the judge’s adjudicatory powers is strictly necessary, thus directing all other disputes toward amicable, out-of-court dispute resolution mechanisms. Hence, lawyers are in the privileged position of presenting clients with a broad array of avenues to resolve disputes and guiding them to the choice of the most appropriate dispute resolution instrument.

Professor Antonio Briguglio (University of Rome Tor Vergata, Italy) then continued with an interesting focus on the relationship between conciliation and arbitration within the overall ADR system. After examining when and how conciliation is attempted during the course of the arbitral proceedings, he shed light on the interesting, and often unknown to the public, ‘conciliatory’ dynamics which often occur amongst members of arbitral tribunals in issuing the arbitration award. In an attempt to find common ground between different viewpoints, conciliatory and communicative skills of arbitrators play a decisive role, in particular in international commercial arbitrations on transnational litigation.

Procedure, Party agreement, and Contract was the focus of a very thorough presentation by Professor Neil Andrews (University of Cambridge, UK) who underlined that consensual justice is a highly stimulating and significant meeting point between substance and procedure, as well as being an important perspective within technical procedural law. He stated that there are three points of interaction between agreement and procedure. Firstly, the parties are free to agree to self-impose preliminary ‘negotiation agreements’ and/or mediation agreements. Secondly, the parties can take a further step to specify or modify the elements of the relevant formal process, albeit court proceedings or arbitration. Thirdly, parties can dispose of or narrow the dispute through a settlement.

The first session concluded with an insightful presentation from Professor Domenico Dalfino (University of Bari Aldo Moro, Italy) who explored the long-debated issue of which party bears the burden of initiating the mandatory mediation in proceedings opposing a payment order. While expressing his criticism towards mandatory mediation, he maintained that voluntariness is the very essence of mediation and the promise of its success.

Second session

The event continued with a second session chaired by Professor Paola Lucarelli. From the perspective of the Brazilian legal system, Professor Teresa Arruda Alvim (Pontifical Catholic University of São Paulo, Brazil) began the session by illustrating that in the last few decades, ADR has afforded parties the possibility to self-tailor a solution to their conflict while significantly diminishing the case overload of the judiciary. Nevertheless, the obstacles to the growth of ADR are multiple, ranging from the lack of preparation of mediators to the traditional adversarial approach of attorneys. She concluded by stating that legal systems must invest, on the one hand, in training highly qualified mediators while on the other, providing new educational paths for attorneys to acquire new negotiation and mediation skills.

The session proceeded to address Online Dispute Resolution (ODR), examining the strengths and weaknesses of using new technologies to solve disputes. Professor Silvia Barona Vilar (University of Valencia, Spain) highlighted the positive and negative aspects of the increasing use of ODR in our digital and algorithmic society. While ODR devices are considered as ensuring access to justice and favouring social peace and citizens’ satisfaction, there are also complex issues around the use of Artificial Intelligence and algorithms such as their accountability, accurate assessment, and transparency.

The relationship between the use of technology and access to justice was explored in depth by Professor Amy J. Schmitz (The Ohio State University, USA), who based her presentation on a thorough empirical study of ODR as a means to advance access to justice for  poor or vulnerable individuals who would otherwise be unable to have their ‘day in court.’

Potential applications of new technologies used in resolving disputes were then examined by Professor Colin Rule (Stanford Law School, USA), who highlighted that ODR, originally created to help e-commerce companies build trust with their users, is now being integrated into the courts to expand access to justice and reduce costs. While admitting there are many questions that still need to be answered, Rule predicted that ODR will play a major role in the justice systems of the future through the expansion of Artificial Intelligence and machine learning.

Showing a more critical approach Professor Maria Rosaria Ferrarese (National School of Administration, Italy) shed light on the threat posed by the use of digital technologies in resolving disputes, after having edited the Italian version of a book by Antoine Garapon and Jean Lassègue – Justice digital. Révolution graphique et rupture anthropologique (Digital Justice. Graphic Revolution and Anthropologic Disruption). While acknowledging that Artificial Intelligence and algorithms can deliver a fast and cheap justice, she underlines that justice is not only about settling a case in a rapid and inexpensive way but also about reinforcing values of a given society and ensuring a creative application of the law.

Call for Papers

XV Conference ASADIP and General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law

ASADIP and IACL invite proposals for presentations for a panel on “Private International Law and Sustainable Development: Latin American Perspectives”. The panel will be part of the XV Conference of ASADIP “A Private International Law to Transform the World” on 27 October 2022 in Asunción, Paraguay during the General Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law (IACL, 23-28 October 2022). More information here.

Convocatoria para realizar propuestas de presentación

XV Jornadas ASADIP y Congreso General de la Academia Internacional de Derecho Comparado

ASADIP e IACL invitan a realizar propuestas de presentaciones para un panel sobre “Derecho internacional privado y desarrollo sostenible: perspectivas latinoamericanas”. El panel será parte de la XV Conferencia de ASADIP “Un Derecho internacional privado para transformar el mundo” el 27 de octubre de 2022 en Asunción, Paraguay, durante el Congreso General de la Academia Internacional de Derecho Comparado (IACL, 23-28 de octubre de 2022). Más informaciones aquí.

Appel à contributions

XV Conférence ASADIP et Congrès Général de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé

L’ASADIP et l’AIDC invitent à proposer des présentations pour un panel sur « Le droit international privé et le développement durable : perspectives latino-américaines ». Le panel fera partie de la XV Conférence ASADIP « Un droit international privé pour transformer le monde » le 27 octobre 2022 à Asunción, Paraguay, lors du Congrès Général de l’Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé (AIDC, 23-28 octobre 2022). Plus d’informations ici.

by Ilija Rumenov Assistant Professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia

The Regional Forum “HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Prospects for the Western Balkans” will take place on 30^th of June and 1^st of July in Skopje, North Macedonia. This event is co-organized by the “Balkans Enforcement Strengthening Project (BESP)” funded by the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs and implemented by the Center for International Legal Cooperation (CILC) and the project “Legal Reform for Economic Development in the Western Balkans” financed by the German Federal Ministry for Economic Development and Cooperation (BMZ) and implemented by Deutsche Gesellschaft für Internationale Zusammenarbeit (GIZ). The event is organized in cooperation with the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) and the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ).

The aim of the Regional Forum is to exchange and debate on the prospects and benefits of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention for the Western Balkans in the presence of representatives from the Ministries of Justice, Ministries of Foreign Affairs, Judicial Training Institutions, Chambers of Enforcement Agents, and legal experts. The forum is structured in six thematic sessions with contributions from different stakeholders.

The Regional Forum will be officially opened by Dr. Nikola Tupancheski, Minister of Justice of the Republic of North Macedonia, Dr. Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General at The Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH) and Mr. Jos Uitdehaag, Vice-President of the International Union of Judicial Officers (UIHJ).

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

(These abstracts can also be found at the IPRax-website under the following link: https://www.iprax.de/en/contents/)

R. Wolfram: Achmea – neglecting of international public law – some afterthoughts

This contribution is not meant to assess the Achmea judgment of the European Court of Justice. It intends instead to throw some light on the rules of public international law on the termination of international treaties, which have not fully been taken into account by those who attempted to implement the Achmea judgment. At the core of is the question whether the incompatibility of a treaty under international law with another international law treaty leads to the automatic non-applicability of the former. The contribution concludes this is not generally the case under the Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties.

P. Schlosser: Jurisdiction Agreements and other Agreements integrally Covered by European Law

1. Certain contracts are particularly close to the law of the European Union. They include international jurisdiction agreements, contracts creating an exception in European law, to generally prohibited contracts, and contracts providing the use of European Trademarks and other European rights valid even against third persons.
2. The fundamental proposal of the author is, that the legal effects of the violation of rights, provided by such contracts, must be found in European, rather than in national law. That law is particularly concerned about its effectiveness, if needed by a creative approach.
3. In German law the legal consequences of such a violation must include, inspired by French law, an indemnification of a lost chance and a more liberal approach to moral (immaterial) damage.

S. Schwemmer: A conflict of laws doctrine for the transfer of bitcoin, crypto securities and other crypto assets

Cryptoassets like Bitcoin are entries in a distributed ledger. As such, they do not fall within any of the traditional categories of property. However, most jurisdictions are slowly working their way to recognize them as property. Even German law now allows for tokenized bearer bonds and defines special transfer requirements. On the level of conflict of laws, this results in a growing need to define the applicable law relating to the assignment of cryptoassets. These questions are not regulated by the written general conflict of laws rules under German law. While § 32 eWpG now provides a special conflict of laws rule for electronic securities, there is still a regulatory gap for other types of tokens. The article discusses possible solutions for the different types of cryptoassets.

B. Heiderhoff/E. Yalcin: International jurisdiction in cases, where services are provided in several Member States

The determination of international jurisdiction under Article 7(1)(b), second indent, of the Brussels Ia Regulation is highly difficult in cases where services are provided in different Member States. The decision of the OLG München (Higher Regional Court of Munich) regarding a brokerage contract shows that it is not always possible to determine the place of main performance. This article discusses if, in such cases, the place where the service provider is domiciled should be considered as the place of performance. The authors conclude that this approach only fits if at least a part of the service was provided at the service provider’s domicile.

W. Hau: International jurisdiction based on nationality in European family law

For almost a quarter of a century, there has been an intensive debate on whether the European legislator is allowed to open international jurisdiction in matrimonial matters for nationals of the forum state earlier than for nationals of other Member States. Now the CJEU has taken the view that such a rule is in line with the prohibition of discrimination provided for in Article 18 TFEU. The reasoning given for this is not particularly profound and leaves some questions unanswered, but it may at least contribute to a welcome reassurance in the area of European family law, in which very deep differences between the legal policy positions of the Member States have become apparent in recent years.

C. González Beilfuss: Forum non conveniens in a European way: a failed dialogue

In the decision commented on here, the CJEU decided for the first time on the interaction of Article 6(a) and Article 7(a) of the Succession Regulation and emphasized the binding effect of the decision to decline jurisdiction for the court later seized. The second court is not permitted to review the decision to decline jurisdiction by the first court. This article analyzes the decision in particular with regard to the lack of communication between the courts, which would have facilitated the smooth interplay between both jurisdiction rules.

B. Hess: Exequatur sur exequatur vaut? The CJEU enlarges the free movement of decisions coming from third states under the Brussels Ibis Regulation

In the judgment C-568/20, the CJEU held that a decision of a court of an EU Member State which merges a judgment of a third state is enforceable under Articles 39 ss of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The Third Chamber argued that the concept of “judgment” in Articles 2(a) and 39 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation refers to the different procedural laws of EU Member States. Burkhard Hess criticizes this deviation from the uniform and autonomous interpretation of the Brussels Ibis Regulation. The solution of the Third Chamber is not compatible with the principle “exequatur sur exequatur ne vaut”.

C. Thole: The law applicable to voidable payments by third parties under Article 16 EIR

In its judgment of 22 April 2021 the ECJ decided that Article 16 EIR must be interpreted as meaning that the law applicable to the contract also governs the payment made by a third party in performance of a contracting party’s contractual payment obligation, where, in insolvency proceedings, that payment is challenged as an act detrimental to all the creditors. The following article explains the decision and its consequences for cross-border avoidance claims.

D. Wiedemann: Lex successionis or lex fori: on the classification of judicial measures in the event of uncertain inheritance relationships

The decision concerns a classical question of classification: the delimitation of succession law from procedural law. The classification of judicial measures in the event of uncertain inheritance relationships, e.g. the appointment of a curator, decides whether such measures are to be assessed according to the procedural law of the lex fori or according to the lex successionis. That a classification is not predetermined can be inferred from different locations: While Germany regulates judicial measures regarding uncertain inheritance relationships in its substantive law (Sections 1960–1962 German Civil Code), other EU Member States and Brazil mainly address this problem in their procedural laws. In the EU, the Succession Regulation No. 650/2012 defines the boundary between succession law and procedure. It will be argued that measures only securing the estate are to be classified as procedural aspects. Measures that also involve the administration of the estate are governed by the Regulation’s choice of law rules.

R. de Barros Fritz: The characterization of gifts causa mortis under the ESR

One of the most debated questions since the enactment of the ESR has been the question of the proper characterization of gifts causa mortis. The UM case presented the first opportunity for the CJEU to address this issue. The following case note will discuss the court’s decision and show that, even after the court’s ruling, many open questions remain as to the characterization of gifts causa mortis.

C. Thomale: Circumventing Member State co-determination rules with the Societas Europaea

Since its introduction, the supranational legal form of the SE, provided by EU law, has been widely used to circumvent national co-determination law. The case note dicusses two German decisions, which highlight the specific arbitrage potential lying in the national component of the company law and co-determination law of the SE as well as in its autonomous co-determination rules.

D. Looschelders: Characterization of German joint wills under the EU Succession Regulation – the Austrian perspective

Whether the binding effects of a joint will underlie German or Austrian law is of great practical importance when successions are connected to both jurisdictions. While under German law the revocation right of an interrelated disposition lapses upon death of the other spouse, Austrian law enables the surviving spouse to revoke his interrelated disposition even after death of the other spouse. Against this background, the subsequently discussed ruling by the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) deals with the crucial question regarding the connecting factor for binding effects, namely whether joint wills under German law have to be characterized as “dispositions of property upon death other than agreements as to succession” (Article 24 EU Succession Reg.) or as “agreements as to succession” (Article 25 EU Succession Reg.). The OGH declared itself in favour of applying Article 25 EU Succession Regulation.

F. Eichel: International enforcement of judgments subject to a condition – exequatur proceedings and international jurisdiction

The article deals with the international enforcement of judgments which are subject to a condition. Against the background of the exequatur proceedings, it sheds light on the question in which proceedings and in which state it is examined whether the condition has occurred. German, Austrian and Swiss procedural law is taken into account. Furthermore, the article examines the scope of the enforcement jurisdiction (Article 24(5) Brussels Ibis Regulation/Article 22(5) Lugano Convention) for these kinds of proceedings and agrees with the decision of the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH, 7.6.2017 – 3 Ob 89/17k). The OGH held that the Austrian claim to examine the occurence of the condition falls within the scope of the enforcement jurisdiction. However, the article criticises that the OGH did not take into account the limited res iudicata-effect of the Austrian claim which should be decisive in determining whether the enforcement jurisdiction is applicable or not.

A. Kirchhefer-Lauber: On the interreligious division of law and the significance of the culture-bound nature of law – illustrated by the Lebanese distinction between constitutive religious marriages and civil registration acts

Private law systems with an interpersonal division of law always pose special challenges for conflict of laws. The article deals with the interplay between autonomous German IPR and the internal conflict of laws of a multi-jurisdictional state using the example of Lebanon, which is home to a total of 18 partial religious legal systems in addition to a “civil legal system”. The author analyses, among other things, court decisions in which the distinction between constitutive religious marriage and civil documentation of marriage in Lebanon plays a central role. She also addresses the fact that the possibility of an ordre public violation in legal systems with a division of laws exists on two levels. Firstly, regarding the internal conflict of laws of the multi-jurisdictional state itself and secondly, with regard to the results through the application of a partial legal system. Finally, she highlights that the interpretative method of comparative law between civil and religious partial legal orders requires a special awareness of the importance of the culture-bound nature of law.

Material:

Recommendation of the European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP/EGPIL) to the European Commission concerning the Private international law aspects of the future Instrument of the European Union on [Corporate Due Diligence and Corporate Accountability]

The law applicable to rights in rem in tangible assets – GEDIP – document adopted at the virtual meeting 2021

Notifications:

H. Kronke: Ulrich Drobnig (1928–2022)

M. Petersen Weiner/M.L. Tran: The Private Side of Transforming our World – UN Sustainable Development Goals 2030 and the Role of Private International Law – Conference, September 9-11^th, 2021 in Hamburg

C. Kohler: Private international law aspects of Corporate Social Responsibility – Conference of the European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP/EGPIL) 2021

On Tuesday, July 5, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 24th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CEST). Univ.-Prof. Mag. Dr. Brigitta Lurger (University of Graz) will speak, in German, about the topic

International law enforcement in social networks

The new website of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP) has just been launched and is available at rdipp.unimi.it.

Giving access to the complete collection of the journal’s Indexes (available both in Italian and in English), a set of useful databases to browse the journal’s content, and the Table of Content of the volumes published in the Book Series Studi e pubblicazioni della Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, this new online resource is designed to disseminate the wealth of knowledge accrued with more than fifty years of Italian and European scholarship and case-law in the field of private international and procedural law.

A weekly newsletter is expected to be launched in the upcoming months to keep our community updated on the latest developments in this area of the law. You can already subscribe to it in the RDIPP network section of the website.

From the Directors and the Editorial Board of RDIPP, a very warm welcome to our pages!

The RDIPP team

With thanks to Professor Francesca C. Villata for the tip-off.

With Case C?265/21, the CJEU is bound to add another chapter to the never-ending story of accurately describing the scope of the head of special jurisdiction for contracts in what is today Art. 7(1) Brussels Ia. The Opinion by AG Szpunar, which was published last week, might give readers an indication of what to expect.

The case arises out of an action for a declaration that the claimants are the owners of 20 works of art, which are currently in their possession. While the claimants argue that they have bought the pieces from their (step)mother, who had bought them from their two creators (the parents of the defendant), the defendant, a German domiciliary, claims that her parents had only temporarily stored the works in the gallery of the claimants’ (step)mother in Liège, Belgium. The case was dismissed in the first instance for lack of international jurisdiction as the Belgian court found itself unable to establish a contractual connection linking the claimants to the defendant.

On the claimants’ appeal, who argue that the claim should nonetheless be qualified as contractual in light of the two sales contracts (between the defendant’s parents and the claimants’ (step)mother and between their (step)mother and themselves), with both relevant places of performance being located in Belgium, the Cour d’appel de Bruxelles referred the following questions to the CJEU:

1. Must the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (‘the Brussels I Regulation’):

a. be interpreted as requiring the establishment of a legal obligation freely assumed by one person towards another, which forms the basis of the applicant’s action, and is that the position even if the obligation was not freely assumed by the defendant and/or towards the applicant?

b. If the answer is in the affirmative, what must the degree of connection between the legal obligation freely assumed and the applicant and/or the defendant be?

2. Does the concept of ‘action’ on which the applicant ‘relies’, like the criterion used to distinguish whether an action comes under the concept of matters relating to a contract, within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, or under ‘matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict’, within the meaning of Article 5(3) of that regulation (C-59/19, paragraph 32), entail verification of whether the interpretation of the legal obligation freely assumed seems to be indispensable for the purpose of assessing the basis of the action?

3. Does the legal action whereby an applicant seeks a declaration that he or she is the owner of an asset in his or her possession in reliance on a double contract of sale, the first entered into by the original joint owner of that asset (the spouse of the defendant, who is also an original joint owner) with the person who sold the asset to the applicant, and the second between the latter two parties, come within the concept of matters relating to a contract within the meaning of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation?

a. Is the answer different if the defendant relies on the fact that the first contract was not a contract of sale but a contract of deposit?

b. If one of those situations comes within the concept of matters relating to a contract, which contract must be taken into consideration for the purpose of determining the place of the obligation which serves as the basis of the claim?

4. Must Article 4 of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) be interpreted as applying to the situation referred to by the third question referred for a preliminary ruling and, if so, which contract must be taken into consideration?

After quickly dismissing the fourth question (which the Cour d’appel might indeed have referred somewhat prematurely at this stage), the Opinion (which is not available in English), starts with a comprehensive review of the Court’s case law on the interpretation of what is now Art. 7(1) Brussels Ia. It culminates in the following summary (references ommitted; own emphasis):

65. Eu égard aux considérations qui précédent, il y a lieu de constater, en premier lieu, que la jurisprudence de la Cour relative à l’interprétation de la notion de « matière contractuelle », au sens de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001, ne saurait être considérée comme uniforme, ce qui
explique les difficultés rencontrées par les juridictions nationales pour déterminer, encore aujourd’hui, si les litiges relèvent ou non de cette matière.

66. En effet, initialement, la Cour s’est orientée vers une interprétation restrictive de la notion de « matière contractuelle », en considérant que seuls les litiges trouvant leur origine dans un contrat entre les parties au litige relevaient de cette matière. Dans le cadre de cette interprétation, la Cour s’est référée, essentiellement, à l’objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridique de la convention de Bruxelles ou du règlement nº 44/2001.

67. La Cour s’est ensuite orientée vers une interprétation plus large de la notion de « matière contractuelle », en considérant qu’un litige relève de cette notion lorsque le demandeur fonde l’action qu’il dirige contre le défendeur sur une obligation juridique librement consentie par une personne envers une autre. C’est dans l’arrêt Engler que la Cour a, pour la première fois, indiqué clairement qu’elle n’interprète « pas [l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001] de manière étroite ». C’est ensuite dans les arrêts Kareda et flightright, confirmés dans la jurisprudence ultérieure, qu’elle a abandonné définitivement l’interprétation restrictive de cette disposition fondée sur l’approche « personnaliste » de la matière contractuelle, issue de l’arrêt Handte, pour adopter une interprétation plus large.

68. En second lieu, il ressort de cette interprétation plus large que l’action d’un demandeur, même introduite contre un tiers, doit être qualifiée de « contractuelle », au sens de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement no 44/2001, dès lors qu’elle se fonde sur une obligation juridique consentie par une personne à l’égard d’une autre. Par conséquent, la circonstance que, en l’espèce, les deux parties au litige ne sont pas directement liées par un contrat ne saurait remettre en cause la qualification de cette action comme relevant de la « matière contractuelle ». En effet, seul importe le fait que l’obligation juridique dont se prévalent les requérants au principal soit née d’un contrat, entendu comme un accord entre deux personnes, ou d’une relation juridique qui peut être assimilée à un contrat dans la mesure où elle crée des « liens étroits de même type que ceux qui s’établissent entre les parties à un contrat ».

69. Dans le cadre de cette interprétation plus large, il ressort des arrêts Kareda et flightright que la Cour s’est référée non seulement à l’objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridique mais également à celui de proximité et de bonne administration de la justice.

70. Ainsi, lorsque l’obligation contractuelle sur laquelle est fondée l’action du demandeur a été identifiée, il y a lieu de déterminer s’il existe un lien de rattachement particulièrement étroit entre la demande et la juridiction qui peut être appelée à en connaître, ou si l’application de l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001 permet de faciliter la bonne administration de la justice. À mon sens, il y a donc lieu de veiller au respect de l’équilibre entre l’objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridique et celui de proximité et de bonne administration de la justice de ce règlement.

…

75. Eu égard aux considérations qui précèdent, je propose de répondre à la première question préjudicielle que l’article 5, point 1, du règlement nº 44/2001 doit être interprété en ce sens que son application présuppose la détermination d’une obligation juridique librement consentie par une personne à l’égard d’une autre et sur laquelle se fonde l’action du demandeur, même lorsque cette obligation ne lie pas directement les parties au litige. Dans l’interprétation de cette disposition, la juridiction nationale doit veiller au respect de l’équilibre entre l’objectif de prévisibilité et de sécurité juridique et celui de proximité et de bonne administration de la justice.

On this basis, AG Szpunar proceeds to point out, in response to the second question (which he reformulates for that purpose), that nothing in the Court’s decision in Wikingerhof requires the national court to examine the contractual obligation in question or the content of the contract (paras. 76–80).

As to the third question, AG Szpunar reiterates that he understands the claim to be contractual in nature as it is ultimately based on an obligation freely entered into, even though the particular contract does not bind the two parties to the dispute (para. 83). Out of the two contracts, the AG deems the first one (the contract between the defendant’s parents and the claimants’ (step)mother) to be decisive for jurisdictional purposes “la source originale des droits et obligations litigieux.” (para. 84).

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

Due to a conflicting conference on the previously planned date (9 and 10 September 2022) and with a view to ongoing developments on the subject-matter in the EU, we have made the decision to reschedule our Conference to Friday and Saturday, 9 and 10 June 2023. This new date should bring us closer to the expected date of accession of the EU and will thus give the topic extra momentum. Stay tuned and register in time (registration remains open)!

On 23 June 2022, the European Parliament by adopting JURI Committee Report A9-0177/2022 gave its consent to the accession of the European Union to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The Explanatory Statement describes the convention with a view to the “growth in international trade and investment flows” as an “instrument […] of outmost importance for European citizenz ans businesses” and expressed the hope that the EU’s signature will set “an example for other countries to join”. However, the Rapporteur, Ms. Sabrina Pignedoli, also expresses the view that the European Parliament should maintain a strong role when considering objections under the bilateralisation mechanism provided for in Art. 29 of the Convention. Additionally, some concerns were raised regardings the protection of employees and consumers under the instrument. For those interested in the (remarkably fast) adoption process, the European Parliament’s vote can be rewatched here. Given these important steps towards accession, June 2023 should be a perfect time to delve deeper into the subject-matter, and the Conference is certainly a perfect opportunity for doing so:

The list of speakers of our conference includes internationally leading scholars, practitioners and experts from the most excellent Universities, the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL), and the European Commission (DG Trade, DG Justice). The Conference is co-hosted by the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH.

The Organizers kindly ask participants to contribute with EUR 200.- to the costs of the event and with EUR 50.- to the conference dinner, should they wish to participate. There is a limited capacity for young scholars to contribute with EUR 100.- to the conference (the costs for the dinner remain unchanged).

Please register with sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de. Clearly indicate whether you want to benefit from the young scholars’ reduction of the conference fees and whether you want to participate in the conference dinner. You will receive an invoice for the respective conference fee and, if applicable, for the conference dinner. Please make sure that we receive your payment at least two weeks in advance. After receiving your payment we will send out a confirmation of your registration. This confirmation will allow you to access the conference hall and the conference dinner.

Please note: Access will only be granted if you are fully vaccinated against Covid-19. Please confirm in your registration that you are, and attach an e-copy of your vaccination document. Please follow further instructions on site, e.g. prepare for producing a current negative test, if required by University or State regulation at that moment. We will keep you updated. Thank you for your cooperation.

Dates and Times:

Friday, 9 June 2023, and Saturday, 10 September 2023, 9 a.m. to 7 p.m.

Venue:

Universitätsclub Bonn, Konviktstraße 9, D – 53113 Bonn

Registration:

sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de

Registration fee: EUR 200.-

Programme

Friday, 9 June 2023

8.30 a.m. Registration

9.00 a.m. Welcome notes

Prof Dr Wulf-Henning Roth, Director of the Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht, Rheinische Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Germany

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH

Part I: Cornerstones

1. Scope of application

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam, Netherlands

2. Judgments, Recognition, Enforcement

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

3. Indirect jurisdiction

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan, Italy

4. Grounds for refusal

Dr Marcos Dotta Salgueiro, Adj. Professor of Private International Law, Law Faculty, UR, Uruguay; Director of International Law Affairs, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Uruguay

5. Trust management: Establishment of relations between Contracting States

Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH / Dr Cristina Mariottini, Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for International, European and Regulatory Law Luxemburg

1.00 p.m. Lunch Break

Part II: Prospects for the World

1. The HCCH System for choice of court agreements: Relationship of the HCCH Judgments Convention 2019 to the HCCH 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Prof Dr Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling, United Kingdom

2. European Union

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

3. Canada, USA

Prof Linda J. Silberman, Clarence D. Ashley Professor of Law, Co-Director, Center for Transnational Litigation, Arbitration, and Commercial Law, New York University School of Law, USA

Prof Geneviève Saumier, Peter M. Laing Q.C. Professor of Law, McGill Faculty of Law, Canada

4. Southeast European Neighbouring and EU Candidate Countries

Ass. Prof. Dr.sc Ilija Rumenov, Assistant Professor at Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia

8.00 p.m. Conference Dinner (EUR 50.-)

Saturday, 10 June 2023

9.00 a.m. Part II continued: Prospects for the World

5. Middle East and North Africa (including Gulf Cooperation Council)

Prof Dr Béligh Elbalti, Associate Professor at the Graduate School of Law and Politics at Osaka University, Japan

6. Sub-Saharan Africa (including Commonwealth of Nations)

Prof Dr Abubakri Yekini, University of Manchester, United Kingdom

Prof Dr Chukwuma Okoli, University of Birmingham, United Kingdom

7. Southern Common Market (MERCOSUR)

Prof Dr Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh, United Kingdom

8. Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN)

Prof Dr Adeline Chong, Associate Professor of Law, Yong Pung How School of Law, Singapore Management University, Singapore

9. China (including Belt and Road Initiative)

Prof Dr Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle, United Kingdom

1.00 p.m. Lunch Break

Part III: Outlook

1. Lessons from the Genesis of the Judgments Project

Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH

2. International Commercial Arbitration and Judicial Cooperation in civil matters: Towards an Integrated Approach

José 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

3. General Synthesis and Future Perspectives

Hans van Loon, Former Secretary General of the HCCH

Today, the European Parliament by adopting JURI Committee Report A9-0177/2022 gave it consent to the accession of the European Union to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.

The Explanatory Statement describes the convention with a view to the “growth in international trade and investment flows” as an “instrument […] of outmost importance for European citizenz ans businesses” and expressed the hope that the EU’s signature will set “an example for other countries to join”. However, the Rapporteur, Ms. Sabrina Pignedoli, also expresses the view that the European Parliament should maintain a strong role when considering objections under the bilateralisation mechanism provided for in Art. 29 of the Convention. Additionally, some concerns were raised regardings the protection of employees and consumers under the instrument.

For those interested in the (remarkably fast) adoption process, the European Parliament’s vote can be rewatched here.

HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention Repository

In preparation of the Conference on the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention on 9/10 June 2023, taking place on campus of the University of Bonn, Germany, we are offering here a Repository of contributions to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. Please email us if you miss something in it, we will update immediately…

Update of 7 June 2022: New entries are printed bold.

Please also check the “official” Bibliography of the HCCH for the instrument.

I. Explanatory Reports

II. Bibliography

III. Recordings of Events Related to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

As previously announced, the Journal of Private International Law-Singapore Management University Virtual Conference on Conflicts of Jurisdiction will be held online on 23 to 24 June 2022 (6.00 pm to 10.20 pm Singapore time, 11.00 am to 3.20 pm British Summer Time on each day). The event is supported by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). Complimentary registration for academics, government and international organisation officials, JPrivIntL Advisory Board members and students will close on 22 June 2022. More information on the conference and the link to register can be found here.

This morning, the CJEU has pronounced on the interplay between the Brussels I bis Regulation and arbitration, this time in the context of the recognition in the UK of a judgment given by a Spanish court.

I. Facts

This case C-700/20 results from the event taking place two decades ago. Some of you may recall that in November 2002, the Greek-owned and Bahamas-operated oil tanker Prestige encountered a storm in the seas close to Galicia coast in Spain. Being damaged, the tanker eventually sunk leaving oil spill and causing significant damage to northern coast of Spain and the western coast of France.

The Spanish state and some other parties sought damage compensation, in the context of the criminal proceedings before the Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña commenced against the master, owners, and the London P&I Club, the liability insurer of both the vessel and its owners, in 2003. In 2012, the London P&I Club commenced arbitration proceedings in London seeking a declaration that, pursuant to the arbitration clause in the insurance contract concluded with the owners of the Prestige, the Spanish state was required to pursue its claims in the arbitration proceedings, and that it could not be liable to the Spain in respect of those claims due to the ‘pay to be paid’ clause.

The arbitration was quicker and the award was made in 2013, upheld the claims also limiting the the London P&I Club’s liability up to USD 1 billion. The P&I Club applied to the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division (Commercial Court), under Section 66 (1) and (2) of the Arbitration Act 1996, for leave to enforce the arbitral award in that jurisdiction in the same manner as a judgment or order and for a judgment to be entered in the terms of that award. The leave was granted in 2013 along with a judgment in the terms of the award.

The Spanish proceedings ended in 2018 by the judgment of the Tribunal Supremo whereby it confirmed that the master, ship owners and the P&I Club were liable to over 200 parties, including the Spanish state, subject, in the case of the P&I Club, to the contractual limit of liability of USD 1 billion. In 2019, the Audiencia Provincial de A Coruña issued an order setting out the amounts that each of the claimants was entitled to obtain from the respective defendants, entitling the Spanish State to be paid approximately EUR 2.3 billion, subject in the case of the P&I Club to the limit of EUR 855 million. Soon after, the Spanish state made an application to the High Court of Justice (England & Wales), Queen’s Bench Division, on the basis of Article 33 of the Brussels I Regulation, for recognition of the latter enforcement order. Slightly prior to the expiration of the Brexit transition period, the UK court made a reference for preliminary ruling concerning the Brussels I Regulation, Article 1(2)(d) – exclusion of arbitration, and Article 34(1) and (3) – grounds for refusal of recognition and/or enforcement.

II. The Issues

At issue was whether that recognition or enforcement could be refused on the basis of the existence, in the UK, of a judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award and the effects of which are irreconcilable with those of the abovementioned judicial ruling (first and second question). And, if not, whether recognition or enforcement may be refused as being contrary to public policy on the ground that it would disregard the force of res judicata acquired by the judgment entered in the terms of an arbitral award (third question).

III. Decision and Reasoning

Not following the opinion of AG Collins delivered in May this year, the CJEU held that a judgment entered by a court of a MS (in this case, UK) in the terms of an arbitral award cannot prevent the recognition there of a judgment given in another MS (in this case, Spain) where a judicial decision resulting in an outcome equivalent to the outcome of that award could not have been adopted by a court of the first MS without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of the Brussels I Regulation. In the case at hand, this means that the Spanish judgment could have been refused recognition and enforcement only if the UK judgment entered by the UK court in the terms of an arbitral award could have been adopted by a UK court without infringing the provisions and the fundamental objectives of that Regulation.
However, the CJEU went on to explain that such fundamental objectives include the principles of free movement of judgments in civil matters, predictability as to the courts having jurisdiction and therefore legal certainty for litigants, sound administration of justice, minimisation of the risk of concurrent proceedings, and mutual trust in the administration of justice (para. 56). It added another requirement –that such judgment should not violate the right to an effective remedy guaranteed in Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (para. 58).

Turning to the facts of the case, the CJEU concludes that the respective UK judgment could not have been rendered on the basis of the Brussels I Regulation without infringing two fundamental rules of the Regulation: first, the rule on the relative effect of an arbitration clause included in an insurance contract which does not extend to claims against a victim of insured damage who bring a direct action against the insurer, in tort, delict or quasi-delict, before the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred or before the courts for the place where the victim is domiciled and, second, the rule on lis pendens which coordinates parallel proceedings based on the priority principle favouring the court first seised.

In answering the third question, the CJEU has relied on the opinion of the AG Collins, who stated the EU legislature intended to regulate exhaustively the issue of the force of res judicata acquired by a judgment given previously and, in particular, the question of the irreconcilability of the judgment to be recognised with that earlier judgment by means of Article 34(3) and (4) of the Brussels I Regulation, thereby excluding the possibility that recourse be had, in that context, to the public-policy exception set out in Article 34(1) of that Regulation. Therefore, res judicata cannot be contained in the notion of public policy for the purpose of recognition and enforcement of judgments under Article 34 of the Brussels I Regulation.

Undoubtedly, this judgment will provoke different reactions, but one thing is certain this is a one-hit wonder in UK given that UK is no longer bound by the Brussels regime.

The CJEU judgment has been made availalbe online yet, but the CJEU issued the Press Release.

First Instance where a Mainland China Civil Mediation Decision has been Recognized and Enforced in New South Wales, Australia

I Introduction

Bank of China Limited v Chen [2022] NSWSC 749 (‘Bank of China v Chen’), decided on the 7 June 2022, is the first instance where the New South Wales Supreme Court (‘NSWSC’) has recognised and enforced a Chinese civil mediation decision (i.e.,?????).

II Background

This case concerned the enforcement of two civil mediation decisions obtained from the People’s Court of District Jimo, Qingdao Shi, Shandong Province China (which arose out of a financial loan dispute) in Australia.[1]

A foreign judgement may be enforced in Australia either at common law or pursuant to the Foreign Judgements Act 1991(Cth).[2] As the People’s Republic of China is not designated as a jurisdiction of substantial reciprocity under the Foreign Judgements Regulation 1992 (Cth) schedule 1, the judgements of Chinese courts may only be enforced at common law.[3]

For a foreign judgement to be enforced at common law, four requirements must be met:[4] (1) the foreign court must have exercised jurisdiction in the international sense; (2) the foreign judgement must be final and conclusive; (3) there must be identity of parties between the judgement debtor(s) and the defendant(s) in any enforcement action; and (4) the judgement must be for a fixed, liquidated sum. The onus rests on the party seeking to enforce the foreign judgement.[5]

Bank of China Ltd (‘plaintiff’) served the originating process on Ying Chen (‘defendant’) pursuant to r 11.4 and Schedule 6(m) of the Uniform Civil Procedure Rules 2005 (NSW) (‘UCPR’) which provides that an originating process may be served outside of Australia without leave of the court to recognise or enforce any ‘judgement’.[6] Central to this dispute was whether a civil mediation decision constituted a ‘judgement’ within the meaning of schedule 6(m).

III Parties’ Submission

A Defendant’s Submission

The defendant filed a notice of motion seeking for (1) the originating process to be set aside pursuant to rr 11.6 and 12.11 of the UCPR, (2) service of the originating process on the defendant to be set aside pursuant to r 12.11 of the UCPR and (3) a declaration that the originating process had not been duly served on the defendant pursuant to r 12.11 of the UCPR.[7]

The defendant argued that the civil mediation decisions are not ‘judgements’ within the meaning of UCPR Schedule 6(m).[8] Moreover, the enforcement of foreign judgment at common law pre-supposes the existence of a foreign judgement which is absent in this case.[9]

The defendant submitted that the question that must be asked in this case is whether the civil mediation decisions were judgements as a matter of Chinese law which is a question of fact.[10] This was a separate question to whether, as a matter of domestic law, the foreign judgements ought to be recognised at common law.[11]

B Plaintiff’s Submission

In response, the plaintiff submitted that all four common law requirements were satisfied in this case.[12] Firstly, there was jurisdiction in the international sense as the defendant appeared before the Chinese Court by her authorised legal representative.[13] The authorised legal representative made no objection to the civil mediation decisions.[14] Secondly, the judgement was final and conclusive as it was binding on the parties, unappealable and can be enforced without further order.[15] Thirdly, there was an identity of parties as Ying Chen was the defendant in both the civil mediation decisions and the enforcement proceedings.[16] Fourthly, the judgement was for a fixed, liquidated sum as the civil mediation decisions provided a fixed amount for principal and interest.[17]

In relation to the defendant’s notice of motion, the plaintiff argued that the question for the court was whether the civil mediation decisions fell within the meaning of ‘judgement’ in the UCPR, that is, according to New South Wales law, not Chinese law (as the defendant submitted).[18] On this question, there was no controversy.[19] While the UCPR does not define ‘judgement’, the elements of a ‘judgement’ are well settled according to Australian common law and Chinese law expert evidence supports the view that civil mediation decisions have those essential elements required by Australian law.[20]

Under common law, a judgement is an order of Court which gives rise to res judicata and takes effect through the authority of the court.[21] The plaintiff relied on Chinese law expert evidence which indicated that a civil mediation decision possesses those characteristics, namely by establishing res judicata and having mandatory enforceability and coercive authority.[22] The expert evidence noted that a civil mediation decision is a type of consent judgement resulting from mediation which becomes effective once all parties have acknowledged receipt by affixing their signature to the Certificate of Service.[23] The Certificate of Service in respect of the civil mediation decisions in this case had been signed by the legal representatives of the parties on the day that the civil mediation decisions were made.[24] While a civil mediation decision is distinct to a civil judgement (i.e., ?????),[25] a civil mediation decision nonetheless has the same binding force as a legally effective civil judgement and can be enforced in the same manner.[26]

The expert evidence further noted that Mainland China civil mediation decisions have been recognised and enforced as foreign judgements in the Courts of British Columbia, Hong Kong and New Zealand.[27] The factors which characterise a ‘judgement’ under those jurisdictions are the same factors which characterise a ‘judgement’ under Australian law.[28]This supports the view that the same recognition should be afforded under the laws of New South Wales.[29]Accordingly, the plaintiff submitted the a civil mediation decision possesses all the necessary characteristics of a ‘judgement’ under Australian law such that service could be effected without leave under schedule 6(m).[30]

IV Resolution

Harrison AsJ noted that the judgements of Chinese courts may be enforceable at common law and found that all four requirements was satisfied in this case.[31] There was jurisdiction in the international sense as the defendant’s authorised legal representative appeared before the People’s Court on her behalf, the parties had agreed to mediation, the representatives of the parties came to an agreement during the mediation, and this was recorded in a transcript.[32] The parties’ representatives further signed the transcript and a civil mediation decision had been issued by the people’s courts.[33] Moreover, the civil mediation decision was final and binding as it had been signed by the parties.[34] The third and fourth requirements were also clearly satisfied in this case.[35]

In relation to the central question of whether the civil mediation decisions constituted  ‘judgements’ in the relevant sense, Harrison AsJ found in favour of the plaintiff.[36] Harrison AsJ first noted that this question should not be decided on the arbitrary basis of which of the many possible translations of ????? should be preferred.[37] Moreover, the evidence of the enforcement of civil mediation decisions as judgements in the jurisdictions of British Columbia, Hong Kong and New Zealand was helpful, though also not determinative.[38]

Rather, this question must be determined by reference to whether civil mediation decisions constituted judgements under Australian law as opposed to Chinese law, accepting the plaintiff’s submission.[39] The civil mediation decisions were enforceable against the defendant immediately according to their terms in China without the need for further order or judgement of the People’s Court.[40] The parties could not vary or cancel the civil mediation decisions without the permission of the Jimo District Court.[41] The civil mediation decisions also had the same legal effects as a civil judgement.[42] Therefore, Harrison AsJ concluded that the civil mediation decisions were judgements for the purposes of Australian law as they established res judicata and were mandatorily enforceable and had coercive authority.[43] It then followed that the civil mediation decisions fell within the scope of UCPR schedule 6(m) and did not require leave to be served.[44]

V Orders

In light of the analysis above, Harrison AsJ held that the Chinese civil mediation decisions were enforceable and dismissed the defendant’s motion.[45] Costs were further awarded in favour of the plaintiff.[46]

Author: Hao Yang Joshua Mok, LLB Student at the University of Sydney Law School

Supervised by Associate Professor Jeanne Huang, Sydney Law School

References:

[1]

This is a guest post by Izaak Weaver-Herrera, JD student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Third-party discovery in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has often represented a pragmatic, if contentious, tool for international counsel. However, in a decision this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that § 1782 discovery may be ordered only if the assembled “foreign or international tribunal” is a body which has been conferred governmental or intergovernmental authority. There has already been a wealth of reaction to this decision, including on this site. This post will offer a few additional perspectives.

As a bit of background, ZF Automotive arrived on the Court’s docket as a consolidation of two cases: ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. v. Luxshare, Ltd. and Alixpartners, LLP, et al., v. the Fund for Protection of Investor’s Rights in Foreign States. Both cases questioned an open aspect of § 1782’s use: whether the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” included private commercial arbitrations between parties of different States and whether it included arbitral panels assembled pursuant to bilateral investment treaties. The Court ruled that since neither panel was conferred governmental authority, § 1782 discovery would be inappropriate in both instances.

Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, adopted a textual approach to the question. In other words, this was less of a decision on international policy, and more a reflection of what Congress said and meant. The Court paid particular attention to the use of “foreign” and “international” as modifiers to the word “tribunal.” The latter was more critical than the former. The term “[t]ribunal” has peculiar governmental or sovereign connotations, the Court said, “so ‘foreign tribunal’ more naturally refers to a body belonging to a foreign nation than to a tribunal that is simply located in a foreign nation.” Similarly, the Court found that “international tribunal” under the statute more naturally referred to tribunals between nations, rather than arbitral panels composed of or adjudicating issues between nationals of different States.

The Court also reasoned that this understanding of the statute more uniformly aligned with principles underlying both § 1782’s origin and the Federal Arbitration Act. The express purpose of § 1782 was to foster international comity. An overly broad application of § 1782, the Court’s view, would permit the use of district court resources in furtherance of “purely private bodies adjudicating purely private disputes abroad,” positioning the U.S. court system as a persistent presence in potentially limitless international disputes. The Court’s opinion also recognized the tension such a reading would create between the discovery permitted under the FAA. While the FAA restricts discovery to the discretion of arbitration panels, § 1782 permits both the tribunal itself and any “interested person” to submit requests for discovery. Thus, the Court reasoned, a narrower reading of § 1782 also serves to harmonize the scope of arbitration in the United States.

With these observations, the private arbitral tribunal in ZF Automotive was not a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782. This was deemed “straightforward.” The Court found the arbitration panel in the Alixpartners dispute more complicated, but ultimately reached the same conclusion. The opinion noted the BIT “simply references the set of rules that govern the panel’s formation and procedure if an investor chooses that forum,” and therefore did not confer permanent sovereign authority on the ad hoc tribunal. Rather, Lithuania simply consented to an arbitration much in the same way two private entities might. Thus, although the Alixpartners tribunal could render a judgment against Lithuania based on its consent in a treaty, it had not been conferred permanent sovereign authority and could not be considered a “foreign or international tribunal.”

The Court did not “foreclose[] the possibility that sovereigns might imbue an ad hoc arbitration panel with official authority.” So although Mixed Claims Commissions of years’ past didn’t quit analogize to modern BIT tribunals, the Court acknowledged that the former may indeed fall on the permissible side of the Court’s new bright line. As international tribunals keep specializing and proliferating (think of the proposed Multilateral Investment Court, or bodies entrusted to handle international criminal law), future questions as to whether a body is “imbued with governmental authority” will for sure arise—but, of course, private commercial arbitration is clearly outside the bounds of section 1782.

Written by Mayela Celis, UNED

Yesterday (15 June 2022) the US Supreme Court rendered its Opinion on the case Golan v. Saada regarding the HCCH Child Abduction Convention. The decision was written by Justice Sotomayor, click here. For our previous analysis of the case, click here.

This case dealt with the following question: whether upon finding that return to the country of habitual residence places a child at grave risk, a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures that would facilitate the return of the child notwithstanding the grave risk finding. (our emphasis)

In a nutshell, the US Supreme Court answered this question in the negative. The syllabus of the judgment says: “A court is not categorically required to examine all possible ameliorative measures [also known as undertakings] before denying a Hague Convention petition for return of a child to a foreign country once the court has found that return would expose the child to a grave risk of harm.” The Court has also wisely concluded that “Nothing in the Convention’s text either forbids or requires consideration of ameliorative measures in exercising this discretion” (however, this is different in the European Union context where a EU regulation complements the Child Abduction Convention).

While admittedly not everyone will be satisfied with this Opinion, it is a good and well-thought through decision that will make a great impact on how child abduction cases are decided in the USA; and more broadly, on the way we perceive what the ultimate goal of the treaty is and how to strike a right balance between the different interests at stake and the need to act expeditiously.

In particular, the Court stresses that the Convention “does not pursue return exclusively or at all costs”. And while the Court does not make a human rights analysis, it could be argued that this Opinion is in perfect harmony with the current approaches taken in human rights law.

In my view, this is a good decision and is in line with our detailed analysis of the case in our previous post. In contrast to other decisions (see recent post from Matthias Lehmann), for Child Abduction – and human rights law in general – this is definitely good news from Capitol Hill.

Below I include a few excerpts of the decision (our emphasis, we omit footnotes):

“In addition, the court’s consideration of ameliorative measures must be guided by the legal principles and other requirements set forth in the Convention and ICARA. The Second Circuit’s rule, by instructing district courts to order return “if at all possible,” improperly elevated return above the Convention’s other objectives. Blondin I, 189 F. 3d, at 248. The Convention does not pursue return exclusively or at all costs. Rather, the Convention “is designed to protect the interests of children and their parents,” Lozano, 572 U. S., at 19 (ALITO , J., concurring), and children’s interests may point against return in some circumstances. Courts must remain conscious of this purpose, as well as the Convention’s other objectives and requirements, which constrain courts’ discretion to consider ameliorative measures
in at least three ways.

“First, any consideration of ameliorative measures must prioritize the child’s physical and psychological safety. The Convention explicitly recognizes that the child’s interest in avoiding physical or psychological harm, in addition to other interests, “may overcome the return remedy.” Id., at 16 (majority opinion) (cataloging interests). A court may therefore decline to consider imposing ameliorative measures where it is clear that they would not work because the risk is so grave. Sexual abuse of a child is one example of an intolerable situation. See 51 Fed. Reg. 10510. Other physical or psychological abuse, serious neglect, and domestic violence in the home may also constitute an obvious grave risk to the child’s safety that could not readily be ameliorated. A court may also decline to consider imposing ameliorative measures where it reasonably expects that they will not be followed. See, e.g., Walsh v. Walsh, 221 F. 3d 204, 221 (CA1 2000) (providing example of parent with history of violating court orders).

“Second, consideration of ameliorative measures should abide by the Convention’s requirement that courts addressing return petitions do not usurp the role of the court that will adjudicate the underlying custody dispute. The Convention and ICARA prohibit courts from resolving any underlying custody dispute in adjudicating a return petition. See Art. 16, Treaty Doc., at 10; 22 U. S. C. §9001(b)(4). Accordingly, a court ordering ameliorative measures in making a return determination should limit those measures in time and scope to conditions that would permit safe return, without purporting to decide subsequent custody matters or weighing in on permanent arrangements.

“Third, any consideration of ameliorative measures must accord with the Convention’s requirement that courts “act expeditiously in proceedings for the return of children.” Art. 11, Treaty Doc., at 9. Timely resolution of return petitions is important in part because return is a “provisional” remedy to enable final custody determinations to proceed. Monasky, 589 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 3) (internal quotation marks omitted). The Convention also prioritizes expeditious determinations as being in the best interests of the child because “[e]xpedition will help minimize the extent to which uncertainty adds to the challenges confronting both parents and child.” Chafin v. Chafin, 568 U. S. 165, 180 (2013). A requirement to “examine the full range of options that might make possible the safe return of a child,” Blondin II, 238 F. 3d, at 163, n. 11, is in tension with this focus on expeditious resolution. In this case, for example, it took the District Court nine months to comply with the Second Circuit’s directive on remand. Remember, the Convention requires courts to resolve return petitions “us[ing] the most expeditious procedures available,” Art. 2, Treaty Doc., at 7, and to provide parties that request it with an explanation if proceedings extend longer than six weeks, Art. 11, id., at 9. Courts should structure return proceedings with these instructions in mind. Consideration of ameliorative measures should not cause undue delay in resolution of return petitions.

“To summarize, although nothing in the Convention prohibits a district court from considering ameliorative measures, and such consideration often may be appropriate, a district court reasonably may decline to consider ameliorative measures that have not been raised by the parties, are unworkable, draw the court into determinations properly resolved in custodial proceedings, or risk overly prolonging return proceedings. The court may also find the grave risk so unequivocal, or the potential harm so severe, that ameliorative measures would be inappropriate. Ultimately, a district court must exercise its discretion to consider ameliorative measures in a manner consistent with its general obligation to address the parties’ substantive arguments and its specific obligations under the Convention. A district court’s compliance with these requirements is subject to review under an ordinary abuse-of-discretion standard.”

The conference Sense and Sensibility in Cross-Border Cases: Couples’ Property will gather line of academic and expert speakers from several countries who will present the results of the research carried out so far under the EU Justice project EU-FamPro dedicated to the EU Twin Regulations (2016/1103 and 2016/1104) in addition to some national topics. Please check the conference programme for details.

The conference will take place on 30 June 2022 in a beautiful venue of the Jean Monnet Inter-University Centre in Opatija (Croatia) and online. The conference is open access without charging any fees, but registration for both onsite and online attendance is required here by 20 June 2022.

The conference is organised by the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law and the Croatian Comparative Law Association in cooperation with the University of Camerino, the University of Ljubljana, the University of Almeria and the Lithuanian Law Institute.

Written by Catherine Shen, ABLI

Following a successful collaboration last year, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) are joining hands again for a second joint webinar this year on Wednesday 27 July between 3 to 6pm (Singapore time).

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions, the webinar will comprise two sessions, each devoted to one of the conventions. Attendees have the option of attending one or both sessions.

Invited speakers Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), the Honourable Justice David Goddard (Court of Appeal, New Zealand), Justice Anselmo Reyes, (International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court), Nish Shetty (Partner, Clifford Chance LLP) and Dr Ning Zhao Senior Legal Officer, HCCH) are expected to talk about the practical operations of the Choice of Court Agreements and Judgments Conventions, how they complement each other and whether the recent debate on the Choice of Court Agreements Convention is justified.

For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 26 June. Queries about the webinar can be directed to Catherine at info@abli.asia.

The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) is holding a webinar on 16 June 2022 at 3:00 pm (Mexico City time – CDT), 10:00 pm (CEST time). The topic of the webinar is The need for a PIL law for Ecuador and will be presented by Professor Jaime Vintimilla Saldaña (in Spanish).

The details of the webinar are:

Link: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/89189611809?pwd=RXhDeE5Gdlkwd2prWnREeVhVelBudz09

Meeting ID: 891 8961 1809

Password: BMAAMEDIP

Participation is free of charge.

This event will also be streamed live: https://www.facebook.com/AmedipMX

The most recent issue of the German Journal of Comparative Law (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft) has just been published. The editors mourn the loss of Professor Peter Mankowski (1966–2022), who served as an editor of the ZVglRWiss from 2009 to his untimely death. This issue contains an obituary written by his academic pupil, Professor Oliver L. Knöfel (Viadrina). In addition, this issue offers several presentations made at the conference “Access – Lessons from Africa” that was held at the University of Bayreuth as well as articles on international tort and corporate law. Here are the abstracts:

Eghosa O. Ekhator: Multinational Corporations, Accountability and Environmental Justice: The move towards subregional litigation in Africa

In the absence of an explicit international framework on the regulation of the crossborder activities of multinational corporations (MNCs), coupled with the barriers to accessing environmental justice through litigation in domestic courts, many victims of environmental injustice now institute cases in foreign jurisdictions especially the home states of the MNCs because they believe they will get justice in those courts. On the other hand, there is plethora of sub-regional institutions that have been relied upon by victims of environmental injustices arising from activities of MNCs in Africa. This article focuses on the reliance on sub-regional judiciaries in Africa by different stakeholders including oil producing communities, individuals, and other relevant stakeholders amongst others. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECCJ) is used as the case-study in this article. Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in Nigeria have also relied on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECCJ) to seek redress for victims of environmental injustice in Nigeria.

Claudia Maria Hofmann: Linkages between access to information and access to health care

Information plays a crucial role when it comes to health care. This article elaborates its enabling function with regard to strengthening the position of patients. To this end, reference is made to the human right to health, which is widely acknowledged in both international and regional human rights instruments. In this article, the interpretation provided by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment no. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health serves as a basis for identifying the key elements state and non-state actors should take into account when providing health-related information to the public.

Victoria Miyandazi: Inequality and Access to Justice: A Focus on the Adjudication of Socio-Economic Rights in Kenya

Kenya’s 2010 Constitution establishes the necessary legal framework for tackling inequalities in the country. The multiple provisions on equality, non-discrimination and socio-economic rights create the impetus for rights-based litigation. Now society wants to claim these rights but there are still many hurdles to do so. Many special interest groups do not have access to lawyers nor the skills to access courts on their own. The growing concern is, therefore, that despite the progressive nature of constitutional provisions that seek to tackle inequalities in the country, they are not by themselves the panacea to the problem of access to justice in the country. Aside from the prohibitive cost of legal representation being a major concern, there are other access to justice challenges that inhibit the poor and marginalised in Kenya from instituting claims in court, and which also affect their chances of succeeding in their claims. This article discusses how an equality-sensitive approach to adjudicating socio-economic rights can help avoid reinforcing inequality and promote equality. It argues that failure to apply such an approach can exacerbate the inequality and access to justice challenges that vulnerable groups already face, especially in times of a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

Justin Monsenepwo: Decolonial Comparative Law and Legal Transplants in Africa

On the occasion of a communication made in the aftermath of independence, many African scholars wondered whether African law would continue to be influenced by French law. More than five decades after, the mark of the considerable influence European law has in African former colonies is still perceptible. Yet, in a decolonized context, it should not be implied that European nations rank higher than African nations and that the laws of the former colonizers provide better solutions to African problems. To decolonize legal thinking in Africa, this contribution suggests improving the training of African lawyers and rediscovering customary law to take it into account in the development of legal rules in Africa. This would offer several practical benefits; however, the chief benefit is that it would remarkably boost the ability of lawyers and lawmakers in Africa to innovate.

Aron Johanson, Andreas Rapp and Anna Vatter: Mosaiktheorie ad absurdum – Örtliche Zuständigkeit im Rahmen des Art. 7 Nr. 2 EuGVVO bei Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen

The article deals with the case law developed by the ECJ on the question of jurisdiction according to article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation in cases of infringement of personality rights. In particular, the so-called “mosaic approach“ is examined, which the ECJ has consistently applied to solve the problem of such multiple locality cases. The article pays particular attention to the hitherto little-discussed problem of local jurisdiction. It is first shown that the predominant German legal practice in this regard is regularly incompatible with article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. At the same time, the consistent application of the mosaic approach in the area of local jurisdiction also leads to completely absurd and thus equally unacceptable results. Therefore, the article is rounded off with brief considerations on how local jurisdiction can be determined sensibly and in conformity with European law.

Luca Della Tommasina: Genossenschaften und nachrangige Mitgliederdarlehen

The essay deals with Italian cooperative companies and the possibility to extend some sort of equitable subordination rule to the loans granted by their members. The article 2467 of the Italian civil code provides that the loans granted to limited liability companies (società a responsabilità limitata – „S.r.l.”) by any member shall be subordinated to the other creditors of the company if at the time the loan is advanced: (i) there is an excessive imbalance between the company’s indebtedness and the net assets; (ii) or the company’s financial situation would require an equity contribution instead of a loan. In the cooperative companies’ field the problem arises from the convergence of two circumstances. On the one hand the argument that article 2467 is compatible with cooperative firms has been rejected in the Italian case law. On the other hand, in 2017 a reform of cooperative law has excluded the subordination (and more precisely the subordination according to the article 2467) for the amounts that a cooperative company receives from its members as “prestito sociale”. The essay is intended to demonstrate that: (i) the (equitable) subordination is consistent with cooperative firms; (ii) the 2017 reform must therefore be interpreted in a restrictive way. The need to find balanced solutions to the problem seems to be confirmed by the recent developments of the German legal framework.

The Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft was founded in 1878 and is Germany’s oldest continuously published periodical on comparative and private international law. Its current editor-in-chief is Professor Dörte Poelzig, M.jur. (Oxon), University of Hamburg. Content is available online either through the website of the Deutscher Fachverlag or via beck online.

Written by Matthias Lehmann, University of Vienna (Austria)

On 13 June 2022, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that U.S. courts may not help arbitral tribunals sitting abroad in the taking of evidence. This is because in the opinion of the Court, such an arbitral tribunal is not a „foreign or international tribunal“ in the sense of 28 U.S.C. § 1782, which allows federal district courts to order the production of evidence for use in proceedings before such tribunals.

The decision concerned an institutional and an ad-hoc arbitration. The first, ZF v. Luxshare, was a commercial arbitration between two companies under the rules of the German Arbitration Institution (DIS). The second, AlixPartners v. Fund for Protection of Investors’ Rights in Foreign States, was an investment arbitration involving a disgruntled Russian investor and a failed Lithuanian bank; it was conducted under the UNCITRAL Arbitration Rules.

The opinion, written by Amy Coney Barrett, rejects assistance by U.S. courts in both cases, whether in the pre-arbitration phase or in the main arbitration proceedings. It was unanimously adopted by the Court.

The Supreme Court first relies on a dubious literal interpretation of § 1782. While it does not dispute that arbitral tribunals may be “tribunals”, this would change by the addition of the adjectives “foreign or international”, as this would require that one or several nations have imbued the tribunal with governmental authority. Alas, the drafters of the New York Convention on recognition and enforcement of “foreign” arbitral awards were wrong, and so apparently were the signatories – among them the U.S. As for the term “international”, numerous treatises on “international commercial arbitration” will now supposedly have to be rewritten or newly titled.

The opinion further argues that the “animating purpose” of § 1782 would be “comity” with other nations, and that it would be “difficult to see how enlisting district courts to help private bodies would help that end”. Yet other nations also have an interest in efficient arbitration proceedings, as evidenced by the New York Convention. This is even particularly clear for investment arbitration because of the involvement of a state party, but it is also true in commercial arbitration. What is decisive from the point of view of many countries is that arbitration as a dispute resolution method is equivalent to litigation, and should not be treated less favourably.

The Supreme Court further argues that if § 1782 were to be extended to commercial arbitral “panels”, it would cover everything, including even a university’s student disciplinary tribunal. Yet the absurdity of this argumentum ad absurdum lies not in the inclusion of arbitration in § 1782 but in the extension made by the Court, which was only asked about the former and not about the latter. If need be, it would have been easy to distinguish commercial and investment arbitral tribunals established under national or international rules and covered by international agreements such as the New York Convention from student disciplinary “tribunals” (rather: panels).

Finally, the Court notes that allowing district courts to proffer evidence to a foreign arbitral tribunal would create a mismatch with the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA), which does not foresee such assistance for domestic arbitral tribunals. Yet the solution of this mismatch should have better been left to the legislator, who could either extend the  FAA to discovery or exclude foreign and international arbitral tribunals from the scope of § 1782. At any rate, the worse situation of domestic arbitral tribunals does not seem a sufficient justification to also deprive arbitral tribunals abroad, who may have particular difficulties in gathering evidence in the U.S., of assistance by U.S. courts.

All in all, this is disappointing news from Capitol Hill for international arbitration. Whether on arbitration or abortion, the current Supreme Court seems to be willing to upend legal precedent and to question customary legal terminology. At least for arbitration, the consequences will not be life-threatening, because the practice will be able to adapt. But one can already see the next questions coming to the Supreme Court. How about this one: Are ICSID tribunals imbued with governmental authority?