Please click here for a link to the registration page. The Facebook page of the events is available here. We have previously announced this event here.

This post was written by Vito Bumbaca, PhD candidate/ Assistant Lecturer, University of Geneva

The EAPIL blog has also published a post on this topic, click here.

Introduction:

The Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000 (Brussels IIA Regulation) still applies to the United Kingdom in EU cross-border proceedings dealing with parental responsibility and/ or child civil abduction commenced prior to the 31 December 2020 (date when ‘Brexit’ entered into force). Moreover, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) is entitled to exercise its jurisdiction over such proceedings involving the UK.

The decision of the High Court of England and Wales (Family Division, 6 November 2020, EWHC 2971 (Fam)), received at the CJEU on 16 November 2020 for an urgent preliminary ruling (pursuant to article 19(3)(b) of the Treaty of the European Union, art. 267 of the Treaty of the Functioning of the European Union, and art. 107 of the Rules of Procedure of the Court of Justice), and the CJEU judgment (SS v. MCP, C-603/20, 24 march 2021) are taken as reference in this analysis.

Question for a CJEU urgent preliminary ruling:

‘Does Article 10 of [Regulation No 2201/2003] retain jurisdiction, without limit of time, in a Member State if a child habitually resident in that Member State was wrongfully removed to (or retained in) a non-Member State where she, following such removal (or retention), in due course became habitually resident?’

Contents of the EWHC (Family Division) judgment:

This judgment involved an Indian unmarried couple with a British daughter, born in England (2017), aged more than three (almost four at the time of the CJEU proceedings). Both parents held parental responsibility over their daughter, the father being mentioned as such in the birth certificate. The mother and the child left England for India, where the child has lived continuously since 2019. The father applied before the courts of England and Wales seeking an order for the return of the child and a ruling on access rights. The mother contested the UK jurisdiction (EWHC 2971, § 19).

The father claimed that his consent towards the child’s relocation to India was temporary for specific purposes, mainly to visit the maternal grandmother (§ 6). The mother contended that the father was abusive towards her and the child and, on that basis, they moved to India (§ 8). Consequentially, she had requested an order (Form C100 ‘permission to change jurisdiction of the child’, § 13). allowing the child’s continuous stay in India. Accordingly, the mother wanted their daughter to remain in India with her maternal grandmother, but also to spend time in England after the end of the pandemics.

In the framework of article 8, Brussels IIA, the Family Division of the Court of England and Wales held that the habitual residence assessment should be fact-based. The parental intentions are not determinative and, in many circumstances, habitual residence is established against the wishes of the persons concerned by the proceedings. The Court further maintained, as general principles, that habitual residence should be stable in nature, not permanent, to be distinguished from mere temporary presence. It concluded that, apart from British citizenship, the child did not have factual connections with the UK. Therefore, according to the Court, the child was habitually resident in India at the time of the proceedings concerning access rights initiated in England (§ 16).

The Family Division extended its analysis towards article 12(3) of the Regulation concerning the prorogation of jurisdiction in respect of child arrangements, including contact rights. For the Court, there was no express parental agreement towards the UK jurisdiction, as a prerogative for the exercise of such jurisdiction, at the time of the father’s application. It was stated that the mother’s application before the UK courts seeking the child’s habitual residence declaration in India could not be used as an element conducive to the settlement of a parental agreement (§ 32).

Lastly, the Court referred to article 10 of Brussels IIA in the context of child abduction while dealing with the return application filed by the father. In practice, the said provision applies to cross-border proceedings involving the EU26 (excluding Denmark and the United Kingdom (for proceedings initiated after 31 December 2020)). Accordingly, article 10 governs the ‘competing jurisdiction’ between two Member States. The courts of the Member State prior to wrongful removal/ retention should decline jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues when: the change of the child’s habitual residence takes place in another Member State; there is proof of acquiescence or ultra-annual inaction of the left-behind parent, holding custody, since the awareness of the abduction. In these circumstances, the child’s return would not be ordered in principle as, otherwise provided, the original jurisdiction would be exercised indefinitely (§ 37).

In absence of jurisdiction under Brussels IIA, as well as under the Family Law Act 1986 for the purposes of inherent jurisdiction (§ 45), the High Court referred the above question to the CJEU.

CJEU reasoning:

The Luxembourg Court confirmed that article 10, Brussels IIA, governs intra-EU cross-border proceedings. The latter provision states that jurisdiction over parental responsibility issues should be transferred to the courts where the child has acquired a new habitual residence and one of the alternative conditions set out in the said provision is satisfied (SS v. MCP, C-603/20, § 39). In particular, the Court observed that article 10 provides a special ground of jurisdiction, which should operate in coordination with article 8 as a ground of general jurisdiction over parental responsibility (§ 43, 45).

According to the Court, when the child has established a new habitual residence in a third State, following abduction, by consequently abandoning his/ her former ‘EU habitual residence’, article 8 would not be applicable and article 10 should not be implemented (§ 46-50). This interpretation should also be considered in line with the coordinated activity sought between Brussels IIA and the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (§ 56).

Ultimately, the Court maintained that article 10 should be read in accordance with recital 12 of the Regulation, which provides that, as one of its fundamental objectives, parental responsibility issues should be decided by the courts that better suit the principle of factual proximity in the child’s best interests (§ 58). Accordingly, the courts that are closest to the child’s situation should exercise general jurisdiction over parental responsibility. To such an extent, article 10 represents a balance between the return procedure, avoiding benefits in favour of the abductor parent, and the evoked proximity principle, freezing jurisdiction at the place of habitual residence.

The Court further held that if the courts of the EU Member State were to retain jurisdiction unconditionally, in case of acquiescence and without any condition allowing for account to be taken concerning the child’s welfare, such a situation would preclude child protection measures to be implemented in respect of the proximity principle founded on the child’s best interests (§ 60). In addition, indefinite jurisdiction would also disregard the principle of prompt return advocated for in the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (§ 61).

The Court concluded that insofar as the child’s habitual residence changes to a third State, which is thus competent over parental responsibility, and article 12 of the Regulation is not applicable, the EU courts seised of the matter should apply the rules provided in the bilateral/multilateral instruments in force between the States in question or, on a subsidiary basis, the national Private International Law rules as indicated under article 14, Brussels IIA (§ 64).

Comment:

Considering the findings of fact, the CJEU reasoning and, prior to it, the EWHC judgment, are supported in that the daughter’s habitual residence at the time of the parental de facto separation (EWHC 2971, § 6-10) was in India; and remained there at the relevant date of the father’s application for return and access rights. If we assume, as implicitly reported in the decisions, that the child was aged less than one at the time of the first relocation from England to India, and that she lived more than two years (18 months between 2017-2018 and almost fully 2019-2020, (EWHC 2971, § 25)) within the maternal family environment in India, including prior to the wrongful act, her place of personal integration should be located in India at the above relevant date. Such a conclusion would respect the factual proximity principle enshrined in recital 12 of Brussels IIA, according to which habitual residence is founded on the child’s best interests. Recital 12 constitutes a fundamental objective applicable to parental responsibility, including access rights, and child abduction proceedings. As a result, the courts of the EU26 should be bound by it as a consequence of the Brussels IIA direct implementation.

The CJEU has not dealt with specific decisive elements that, in the case under analysis, would determine the establishing of the child’s habitual residence in India at a relevant time (the seisin under art. 8 and the period before abduction under art. 10 of the Regulation). Considering the very young age (cf. CJEU, SS v. MCP, C-603/20, § 33: ‘developmentally sensitive age’) of the daughter at the time of the relocation, the child’s physical presence corresponding to the mother’s and grandmother’s one as the primary carers prior to the wrongful act (retention) and to the return application, as well as the Indian social and family environment at the time of the seisin, highlighted by the EWHC, should be considered determinative (cf. CJEU, UD v. XB, C-393/18, 17 October 2018, § 57) – the Family Division instead excluded the nationality of the child as a relevant factor. The regularity of the child’s physical presence at an appreciable period should be taken into account, not as an element of temporal permanent character, but as an indicator of factual personal stability. In this regard, the child’s presence in one Member State should not be artificially linked to a limited duration. That said, the appreciable assessment period is relevant in name of predictability and legal certainty. In particular, the child’s physical presence after the wrongful act should not be used as a factor to constitute an unlawful habitual residence (Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, 23 February 2021, § 68-69).

Again, in relation to the child’s habitual residence determination in India, the child’s best interests would also play a fundamental role. The father’s alleged abuse, prior to the relocation, and his late filing for return, following the wrongful retention, should be considered decisive elements in excluding the English family environment as suitable for the child’s best interests. This conclusion would lead us to retain India as the child-based appropriate environment for her protection both prior to the wrongful retention, for the return application, as well as at the seisin, for access rights.

In sum, we generally agree with the guidance provided by the CJEU in that factual proximity should be considered a fulfilling principle for the child’s habitual residence and best interests determination in the context of child civil abduction. In this way, the CJEU has confirmed the principle encapsulated under recital 12, Brussels IIA, overcoming the current debate, which is conversely present under the Hague Convention 1980 where the child’s best interests should not be assessed [comprehensively] for the return application (HCCH, Guide to Good Practice Child Abduction Convention: Part VI – Article 13(1)(b); a contrario, European Court of Human Rights, Michnea v. Romania, no. 10395/19, 7 October 2020). However, it is argued (partly disagreeing with the CJEU statement) that primary focus should be addressed to the mutable personal integration in a better suited social and family environment acquired within the period between the child’s birth and the return application (cf. CJEU, HR, C-512/17, 28 June 2018, § 66; L v. M, 2019, EWHC 219 (Fam), § 46). The indefinite retention of jurisdiction, following abduction, should only be a secondary element for the transfer of jurisdiction in favour of the child’s new place of settlement after the wrongful removal/ retention to a third State. In practice, it is submitted that if the child had moved to India due to forced removal/ retention by her mother, with no further personal integration established in India, or with it being maintained in England, founded on the child’s best interests, the coordinated jurisdictional framework of articles 8 and 10 (and possibly article 12.4) of the Brussels IIA Regulation might have still been retained as applicable (cf. Opinion of Advocate General Rantos, § 58-59; as a comparative practice, see also L v. M, and to some extent Cour de cassation, civile, Chambre civile 1, 17 janvier 2019, 18-23.849, 5°). That said, from now on the CJEU reasoning should be binding for the EU26 national courts. Therefore, article 10 shall only apply to intra-EU26 cross-border proceedings, unlike articles 8 and 12 governing EU26-third State scenarios.

On Monday, 12 April 2021, from 14:00 to 15:00 (CET), the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host the first presentations in a new monthly  “Private International Law in Africa” series, chaired by Justin Monsenepwo, the new head of the Africa desk. Professor Jan L Neels (University of Johannesburg) will be speaking on the topic:

“An Introduction to the African Principles of Commercial Private International Law”

The zoom presentation will be followed by an open discussion. All are welcome. After having registered no later than 9 April 2021 using this link you will receive the login details on Friday afternoon. More information and sign-up here.

The “Private International Law in Africa” series intends to discuss new scholarly work on private international law in Africa and advance solutions on how the current framework of that field can be improved on the continent. In an environment of growing international transactions in both civil and commercial matters, private international law can play a significant role in enhancing legal and judicial security and predictability in Africa.

In May 2021 the next speaker will be Dr. Abubakri Yekini (Lagos State University), who will speak on the topic “Enforceability of Jurisdiction Agreements in Nigeria”.

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

Shocking, completely unexpected news: Emmanuel Gaillard, the leading scholar and practitioner of international arbitration and a giant in the field, died on April 1, at age 69. Pierre Mayer calls this “an immense loss;” Jean-Dominique Merchet calls him a “star”. Le Monde du droit collected some further reactions from French colleagues. Some eulogies in English are here and here. The International Chamber of Commerce also published a brief statement, as did the International Academy of Comparative Law.

Only two months ago, Gaillard had left  Sherman Sterling, whose international arbitration department he had founded in 1989 and led since then, and founded a spinoff with six other former Shearman Sterling colleagues,  Gaillard Shelbaya Banifatemi. His new law firm, announcing the death, called him “a totem in the world of international arbitration and a source of inspiration for lawyers around the world.” The law firm asks to share memories for a memorial book to be shared with his family and close ones.

Gaillard was well known as a practitioner (his biggest case may have been Yukos, though he had countless others) as well as a scholar (his Hague lectures on the “Legal theory of arbitration”, republished as a book and translated into several languages,, were a crucial step towards a more theoretical understanding of the field.) Most recently, he had been instrumental for OHADA’s decision to let Sherman Sterling draft a new private international law code for the region. The firm’s own statement of that decision is, however, down. The project, if continued, will need to go on without him. RIP.

The Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) is seeking a(n) (Assistant) Legal Officer. The successful candidate will begin work in the field of international commercial and financial law and will gradually also be expected to carry out work in other areas, including family law.

Applications should be submitted by Sunday 2 May 2021 (00:00 CEST). For more information, please visit the Recruitment section of the HCCH website.

This post is published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference of Private International Law (HCCH). 

A petition for a writ of certiorari has been filed before the US Supreme Court in a case concerning the HCCH Child Abduction Convention and the grave risk exception (art. 13(1)(b)). The issue at stake is: Whether, upon finding that there is a grave risk that a return would expose a child to physical or psychological harm (or intolerable situation), a district court is required to consider ameliorative measures (in other words, undertakings) to facilitate the (safe) return of the child. For the exact wording of the petition, see below. 

Please note that US courts often use the terms “ameliorative measures” and “undertakings” interchangeably (as stated in the petition).This petition has been docketed as Golan v. Saada, No. 20-1034. This petition and other documents relating to this case have been distributed for the Conference of today – 1 April 2021.

“QUESTION PRESENTED

The Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction requires return of a child to his or her country of habitual residence unless, inter alia, there is a grave risk that his or her return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm. The question presented is:

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.”

With regard to this issue, there is indeed a split in the US circuits (as well as state courts). 

According to the petition “The First, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits have indicated that, once a district court determines that there is a  grave  risk  that  the  child  will  be  exposed  to  harm,  the  court need not consider any ameliorative measures,” whereas  “the Second, Third, and Ninth Circuits require a district court to consider a full range of ameliorative  measures  that  would  permit  return  of  the  child,  even when the court finds that there is a grave risk that a child’s return would expose that child to physical or psychological harm.” This case originated in the Second Circuit.

The split in the US circuits has been acknowledged by practitioners, see for example, James D. Garbolino, Federal Judicial Center, The 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: A Guide for Judges, Second Edition (2015), 137-147 (see in particular p. 143. – but a few different circuits are mentioned, which attest to the confusion of practitioners). Accordingly, in my personal opinion, there is definitely merit in raising this issue before the US Supreme Court.

We will keep you informed as to whether this petition is granted or refused.

(published by Oxford University Press, 2020)

The authors kindly provided the following summary: 

The book marries two fields of law: negotiable instruments and choice-of-law. Bills of exchange, cheques and promissory notes are the main classical negotiable instruments. For centuries, these instruments have played a vital role in the smooth operation of domestic and international commerce, including in transactions between distantly located parties. Through their evolution, fusion, and sophistication, they have remained one of the primary tools for everyday commercial activity, serving as one of the primary methods of payment and credit and one of the cornerstones of the contemporary bank-centred system. The rapid technological progress of payment mechanisms has embraced the traditional institution of negotiable instruments leading to their further adaptation and sophistication in order to meet the challenges of the contemporary reality of frequent mobility of people, goods, and high daily volumes of cross-border transactions and international commerce.

The cross-disciplinary partnership between the authors, one specializing in negotiable instruments and the other in choice-of-law, aims to offer a comprehensive and thorough analysis of the choice-of-law rules applicable to negotiable instruments. The internal structure of negotiable instruments’ law is complex, which has given rise to a popular view favouring the mythological ‘law merchant’,[1] the exclusion of negotiable instruments from the scope of general contract and property law doctrines, and their subsequent exclusion from ordinary choice-of-law analysis.

The central thesis of the book is to challenge this common view. Indeed, the complex structure of negotiable instruments creates a significant challenge for traditional contract and property doctrine and the choice-of-law analysis applicable to them. Yet, in contrast to the common view, the authors argue that the complex case of international negotiable instruments should be analyzed through the lens of traditional contract & property choice-of-law doctrines rather than by crafting new specially designed rules for negotiable instruments.

In order to illustrate this point, consider the – well-known in choice-of-law literature – Giuliano & Lagarde Report (‘The Report’),[2] which has served as a basis for contemporary European Rome Regulations[3] on the question of applicable law. The Report excludes negotiable instruments law from the scope of ordinary choice-of-law analysis.[4]However, one can reassess the three rationales mentioned in the Report to justify negotiable instruments’ law exclusion. First, it makes a point that a negotiable instrument is not a contract.[5] In this book, the authors argue the opposite – from their very origin to their present-day doctrinal analysis, negotiable instruments are very much contracts and carefully follow the essentials of contract law doctrine, alongside the basic elements of tangible property law.[6]

 Second, the Report characterizes a negotiable instrument as a ‘complex contract’.[7] Indeed, in their study the authors provide a precise demarcation of the special nature of the negotiable instrument as a ‘special’ contract to delineate its divergence from the ‘ordinary’ contract; its relation to basic elements of tangible property transfer; and how this divergence affects (if at all) the choice- of- law rules of negotiable instruments, comparatively to choice-of-law rules of ‘ordinary’ contracts and tangible property. While throughout their book the authors show that negotiable instruments present ‘complicated special rules’ that should be analyzed, modified and distinguished from ‘ordinary’ contract law/property law rules, they are very much based on them.

Finally, the Report makes a reference to the existing harmonization processes.[8] In this book, the authors provide a detailed comparative analysis of the various rules in diverse legal systems and they show that they are far from uniform.[9] The authors discuss the various harmonization processes of negotiable instruments,[10] and make some suggestions for possible reforms within the process of international harmonization of the choice-of-law rules,[11] which would capture the challenges of the digital age.[12]  In contrast to the Report, the authors argue that the traditional choice-of-law rules in the areas of contract law and tangible property can serve as a model for such reform of choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments.

In effect, authors’ call for a redesign of the present choice-of-law rules relating to negotiable instruments finds traces in contemporary literature.  The commentators of one of the leading textbooks in the field have framed the need for a reconsideration of the choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments in the following terms:

…it must be noted that the Bills of Exchange Act 1882 and much of the case referred to in the following paragraphs is now more than a century old. In that time, the role and significance of bills of exchange in commercial intercourse and the approach of the conflict of laws to freely incurred obligations such as these has changed radically. As the following commentary makes clear, the rules contained in the 1882 Act are neither comprehensive nor easy to understand and apply. A radical overhaul of the law in this area, whether by legislation or international convention, seems long overdue.[13]

In this book, the authors are indeed willing to take up the challenge of a ‘radical overhaul’.  In line with the above-stated quotation, they suggest a radical reorientation of choice-of-law rules. They argue that choice-of-law rules in the area of international negotiable instruments need to be dramatically amended and harmonized.

The contemporary choice-of-law rules within this area of law have originated from flawed premises about the nature of the subject. Further, contemporary rules have left behind the modern development of choice-of-law doctrine. Relying on the foundation of negotiable instruments’ law within the traditional ordinary doctrines of contract and movable property and invoking developments within modern choice-of-law thought, the authors endeavour to challenge the traditional orthodoxy and offer a complete re-examination of the choice-of-law rules of negotiable instruments.

[1] See Chapter II.

[2] Report on the Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations by Mario Giuliano, Professor, University of Milan, and Paul Lagarde, Professor, University of Paris I, Official Journal C 282, 31/10/1980 P. 0001 – 0050.

[3] Commission Regulation (EC) 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (Rome I), 2008 O.J. (L 177) 6 (EU);  Commission Regulation 864/2007, on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II), 2007 O.J. (L 199) 40 (EC)

[4] Giuliano & Lagarde Report, sec. 4.

[5] Ibid.

[6] See Chapter I & Chapter II.

[7] Report, sec. 4.

[8] Ibid.

[9] See Chapter I.

[10] See Chapter I & Chapter III.

[11] See Chapters V-VII.

[12] See Chapter VIII.

[13] Lawrence Collins (ed) Dicey, Morris and Collins on the Conflict of Laws (15th edn Sweet & Maxwell 2012) 2077.

Meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy

The Council on General Affairs and Policy (CGAP) of the HCCH met online from 1 to 5 March 2021, with over 350 participants. Over the course of five days, HCCH Members reviewed progress made to date and agreed on the work programme for the year ahead. More information is available here.

Several important developments relating to Membership and HCCH Conventions occurred during the meeting:

• Thailand deposited its instrument of acceptance of the Statute, becoming the 88^thMember of the HCCH.
• El Salvador applied to become a Member of the HCCH. Following a six-month voting period and provided a majority of votes have been cast in its favour, El Salvador will be invited to become a Member by accepting the Statute of the HCCH.
• Israel signed the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention and the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The 2005 Choice of Court Convention, which currently binds 31 States and the EU, will enter into force for Israel only after it deposits an instrument of accession or ratification. Although the 2019 Judgments Convention is not yet in force, Israel is the third signatory to the Convention.

More information on these developments is available here.

Finally, as customary the meeting coincided with the publication of the Annual Report of the HCCH. The 2020 Annual Report can be downloaded or ordered here.

Other Meetings & Events

On 15 and 18 March, the HCCH and the International Union of Judicial Officers co-hosted a webinar on the application of the 1965 Service Convention and the 2019 Judgments Convention aimed at judicial officers and other legal professionals. Recordings of the webinar are available here in English and here in French.

On 18 March, the HCCH and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Japan co-hosted a webinar on the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention in the Asia Pacific, attended by judges and officials of Central Authorities from 12 countries and regions in the Asia Pacific. More information is available here.

On 30 March, the HCCH participated in the virtual High Level Conference “Protecting Vulnerable Adults across Europe – the Way Forward”, organised by the Ministry of Justice of Portugal, the European Commission and the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights under the auspices of the Portuguese Presidency of the Council of the European Union. The recording of the conference is available here.

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

Written by Marcus Teo (Sheridan Fellow (Incoming), National University of Singapore)

Since Foster v Driscoll [1929] 1 KB 470, common law courts have recognised that contracts made with the intention to commit a criminal offence in a foreign state are unenforceable, even if the contract contemplated an alternative mode or place of performance. However, recent developments in domestic law illegality have sparked debate on whether foreign law illegality too should be reformed in a similar light (see Ryder Industries Ltd v Chan Shui Woo [2016] 1 HKC 323, [36], [52]-[55]; cf Magdeev v Tsvetkov [2020] EWHC 887 (Comm), [331]-[332]). The debate, however, has thus far not considered whether foreign law illegality should expand to bar certain non-contractual claims – a question which the Singapore Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Jonathan Ang v Lyu Yan [2021] SGCA 12 raises.

Lyu Yan wanted to transfer money from China to Singapore. Her bank in Singapore introduced her to Joseph Lim for assistance. Joseph proposed that Lyu transfer Renminbi from Lyu’s Chinese bank account to the Chinese bank accounts of two other individuals, Jonathan Ang and Derek Lim. Jonathan and Derek would then transfer an equivalent sum in Singapore Dollars from their Singapore bank accounts to Lyu’s Singapore bank account. Lyu performed the transfer in China, but received no money in Singapore. She then sued Joseph for breach of contract; and sued Joseph, Jonathan and Derek in tort and unjust enrichment. At first instance, the Singapore High Court ruled against all three defendants. Joseph did not appeal, but Jonathan and Derek did, arguing, inter alia, that Foster barred Lyu’s non-contractual claims against them because Chinese law prohibited their transaction.

Andrew Phang JCA, who delivered the Court’s judgment, dismissed Jonathan and Derek’s appeal. It was undisputed that the transaction, if performed, would have violated Chinese law (See Lyu Yan v Lim Tien Chiang [2020] SGHC 145, [15]-[16]). However, Lyu did not intend to break Chinese law – the facts at their “highest” showed that she thought the transaction contravened Singapore law rather than Chinese law (Jonathan Ang, [18], [20]). Thus, since Foster does not apply if the claimant does not intend to contravene a specific foreign law, it was inapplicable.

Of interest, though, were Phang JCA’s obiter comments: if Lyu had known the transaction contravened Chinese law, would her non-contractual claims be barred? Foster, he noted, was “not applicable in relation to non-contractual claims” ([26]). This was contrasted with the position in domestic law illegality, where an illegality affecting a contract could sometimes also bar other non-contractual claims arising from the contractual relationship ([27]-[28]). Here, Phang JCA referenced Ochroid Trading Ltd v Chua Siok Lui [2018] 1 SLR 363, where the Court of Appeal had held that claims in unjust enrichment (and, potentially, tort) arising from a contractual relationship would be barred if it stultified the policy underlying the law which rendered the contract unenforceable (Ochroid Trading [145]-[159], [168])

Phang JCA then considered whether Foster and Ochroid Trading could be “read together” (Jonathan Ang, [30]) – i.e., whether foreign and domestic law illegality, as separate doctrines, could apply on the same facts. This could only happen when Singapore law was the lex contractus, because, while Foster barred contract claims “regardless of their governing laws”, Ochroid Trading barred only claims governed by Singapore law. If indeed Foster and Ochroid Trading were “read together”, however, “possible difficulties” arose, because it would put a plaintiff with a Singapore law contract in a worse position than a plaintiff with a foreign law contract: the former would potentially have both his contractual and non-contractual claims barred, while the latter would have only his contractual claim barred ([33]). To Phang JCA, this was undesirable, because there was “no principled reason” for this distinction ([34]). While Phang JCA did not attempt to resolve these “difficulties”, he concluded by noting that for both foreign law and domestic law illegality “the concept of policy serves as a limiting factor to ensure that the illegality involved does not inflexibly defeat recovery where such recovery is justified” ([34]) – presumably, then, Phang JCA was noting tentatively that recourse to public policy arguments might help ameliorate the differences between the two classes of plaintiffs he identified.

Phang JCA’s comments in Jonathan Ang raise more questions than answers; this was of course by design, given their tentative and exploratory nature. However, with respect, the correctness of some of the assumptions Phang JCA relied on may be doubted. First, one may only conclude that there is no “principled reason” for treating plaintiffs with Singapore law contracts differently from plaintiffs with foreign law contracts if one accepts that domestic and foreign law illegality share the same “principled” basis. However, Foster’s principled basis remains shrouded in uncertainty: courts and commentators have variously called it a doctrine of public policy, comity and international jurisdiction, but only the first conception of Foster aligns it with domestic law illegality. Second, while it is true that the public policies of the forum limit both domestic and foreign law illegality, those public policies perform that function in different ways in those two contexts. In domestic law illegality, courts ask whether barring the plaintiff’s claim would give effect to the forum’s public policies; but in foreign law illegality, courts ask whether denying recognition of the relevant foreign law, and thus allowing the plaintiff’s claim, would give effect to the forum’s public policies. It follows that public policy arguments may not consistently resolve differences between the two classes of plaintiffs identified by Phang JCA.

At base, the questions posed in Jonathan Ang (and the assumptions they relied on) were only relevant because of Phang JCA’s continued acceptance of one central proposition: that foreign law illegality bars only contractual claims. Yet, this proposition is doubtful; in Brooks Exim Pte Ltd v Bhagwandas Naraindas [1995] 1 SLR(R) 543, Singapore’s Court of Appeal considered Foster in relation to a claim for “money had and received”, and found it inapplicable only because parties there did not intend to breach foreign law (Brooks Exim, [1], [14]). Moreover, the justification for limiting Foster’s rule to contractual claims remains unclear: in Jonathan Ang Phang JCA cited the English High Court’s decision in Lilly Icos LLC v 8PM Chemists Ltd [2010] FSR 4 for it, but there that proposition was simply accepted without argument (Lilly Icos, [266]). A possible justification might be that only in contract claims may parties, by virtue of their ability to choose the governing law, avoid the applicability of the (criminal) law of a foreign state objectively connected to their relationship. This, however, would be a poor justification, since parties have the autonomy to choose the governing law for various non-contractual claims as well. An expressly chosen law, for example, may govern not just parties’ contract, but also claims in unjust enrichment arising from that contractual relationship by virtue of a characterization sub-rule, and potentially also tort claims under an exception to the lex loci delicti rule (or, in Singapore’s context, the double actionability rule). If foreign law illegality exists to prevent parties from avoiding the law of a state objectively connected to their contractual relationship, it should bar all claims arising from that contractual relationship governed by parties’ chosen law, regardless of whether those claims are “contractual” or “non-contractual”.

The European Commission (EC) is preparing a legislative initiative on the recognition of parenthood between the EU Member States. The EC is now in the process of setting up an Experts’ Group on the topic and has issued a call for Experts which, together with more information, can be found here.

Information and text provided by Niklaus Meier, co-head of the Private International Law Unit at the Swiss Federal Office of Justice

The Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law (FAPIL), adopted in 1987, has had – and still has – a huge influence throughout the world. It is “possibly the most complete codification of private international law worldwide” (Kadner Graziano, Journal of Private International Law. 2015, vol. 11, no. 3, p. 585: “Codifying European Private International Law: The Swiss Private International Law Act – A Model for a Comprehensive European Private International Law Regulation?”) and has influenced PIL codifications in many countries (Kadner Graziano, p. 589-90).

The global relevance of the Swiss Federal Act on PIL led to numerous translations, testament of its international character. Complete translations have been published by Prof. Andreas Bucher (last updated 2021): www.andreasbucher-law.ch; Umbricht attorneys (2017): www.umbricht.ch/de/schweizerisches-internationales-privatrecht-iprg; Gehri/Walther (2010): www.schulthess.com/verlag/detail/ISBN-9783280072509/Gehri-Myriam-A.-Walther-Fridolin/Swiss-Laws-on-Civil-Procedure; the Swiss-American Chamber of Commerce (2^nd edition 2004, 1^st edition 1989); and Karrer/Arnold/Patocchi (1994): Switzerland’s Private International Law (Schulthess/Kluwer). In addition, chapter 12 on arbitration has been translated by actors active in the field, such as the Swiss Arbitration Association (www.arbitration-ch.org/en/arbitration-in-switzerland/index.html).

Translation is a difficult task: “Mastery of the languages involved is necessary, but not sufficient, particularly where the user of a translation expects a literal translation, the legal systems of the starting languages and target language differ fundamentally and the subject matter is highly abstract.” (Walter König, 11 Mich. J. Int’. L. 1294 (1990), 1295, “Translation of Legal Texts: Three English Versions of the Swiss Federal Statute on Private International Law”). Indeed, a civil law codification usually “contains many legal terms which either do not exist in common law jurisdictions or have different connotations in the case of literal translations”.

In recent years, the importance of English versions of the Swiss legal texts has grown. To give just one example: Article 4.4 of the Swiss-Chinese Free Trade Agreement (page 23) explicitly states (under the heading “transparency”) that “Each Party shall promptly publish on the Internet, and as far as practicable in English, all laws, regulations and rules of general application relevant to trade in goods between China and Switzerland.” It goes without saying that the FAPIL is relevant for international trade.

Against this background, and in view of the growing demand for the availability of Swiss legal texts in English, the official publication platform for Swiss law (Fedlex) has now released the “official non-official” translation of the FAPIL: www.fedlex.admin.ch/eli/cc/1988/1776_1776_1776/en. It is up to date as per February 2021 and includes the most recent DLT-related PIL amendments.

The character of the translation is “official” because it’s published on the official publication platform for Swiss law, which speaks for itself; but it nevertheless is of “non-official” nature only because “English is not an official language of the Swiss Confederation. This translation is provided for information purposes only and has no legal force.” In can perhaps best be described as “officially non-official, but unofficially official”.

The translation is in large parts based on the translation published by Prof. Andreas Bucher, with the kind permission of the author. The translation does not aim to be (and is not) better than the various existing private translations of the FAPIL, which have provided useful guidance during the past decades. The translation simply wants to render the FAPIL more accessible to the international public, and in order to do so and in order to get approval for publication on the official publication platform for Swiss law, certain adaptations were necessary:

Where several choices of wording were possible, preference was given to expressions that are already in use in other translations of Swiss legislation (e.g. translations of the Swiss Civil Procedure Code, the Swiss Civil Code, or the Swiss Code of Obligations), in order to ensure coherence and consistency.

Due account was also given to the wording used in international conventions ratified by Switzerland (such as the numerous Hague Conventions).

In addition, the translation takes into account language requirements applicable to texts published by the Swiss federal administration, such as the use of gender-neutral language where appropriate and where possible; this led to the use of the “singular-they”, applicable to both female and male persons.

People who work in different languages and who have compared the different language versions of the FAPIL will have noted some differences between the French, German and Italian versions of the texts. For example, art. 151 para. 3 in the German version, translated with deepl, states that “This jurisdiction cannot be excluded by a choice of court agreement.”, whereas the French version starts the paragraph (again according to deepl) with “Notwithstanding a choice of court, …” In such circumstances, preference was given to the wording that seemed clearer and more in line with the interpretation given to the text by the Federal Supreme Court.

Traduire c’est trahir – translation is treason. Those who coordinated the translation (the Private International Law Unit at the Swiss Federal Office of Justice) are fully aware that critics will find areas for improvement. Feedback can be sent to ipr [at] bj.admin.ch. The translation will continue to be improved and updated in the years to come, in order to respond to new developments such as the upcoming revision of the chapter on succession law.

Written by Mayela Celis

On 25 March 2021, the US Supreme Court rendered its opinion on the consolidated Ford Motor cases, which deals with personal jurisdiction (in particular, specific jurisdiction) over Ford Motor Company. These cases deal with a malfunctioning 1996 Ford Explorer and a defective 1994 Crown Victoria vehicles, which caused the death of a passenger in Montana and the injury of another passenger in Minnesota, respectively. The consolidated cases are: Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court et al. and Ford Motor Co. v. Bandemer.

The opinion is available here. We have previously reported on this case here.

The question presented was:

The Due Process Clause permits a state court to exercise specific personal jurisdiction over a non­resident defendant only when the plaintiff’s claims “arise out of or relate to” the defendant’s forum activities. Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz, 471 U.S. 462, 472 (1985) (internal quotation marks omitted). The question presented is: Whether the “arise out of or relate to” requirement is met when none of the defendant’s forum contacts caused the plaintiff’s claims, such that the plaintiff’s claims would be the same even if the defendant had no forum contacts.

As noted in our previous post, it can be argued that besides jurisdictional matters relating to the defendant, these cases deal with fundamental notions of access to justice for consumers. Fortunately, the US Supreme Court sided with the victims of the car accidents. As a result, buyers of Ford vehicles are able to sue in their home State / the place of injury (instead of chasing up the defendant). Undoubtedly, this promotes access to justice as it decreases the litigation costs of suing a giant company elsewhere, as well as it avoids the hardship of suing in a remote place.

For a summary of the facts, see the syllabus of the opinion. We also include the facts here:

“Ford Motor Company is a global auto company, incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in Michigan. Ford markets, sells, and services its products across the United States and overseas. The company also encourages a resale market for its vehicles. In each of these two cases, a state court exercised jurisdiction over Ford in a products-liability suit stemming from a car accident that injured a resident in the State. The first suit alleged that a 1996 Ford Explorer had malfunctioned, killing Markkaya Gullett near her home in Montana. In the second suit, Adam Bandemer claimed that he was injured in a collision on a Minnesota road involving a defective 1994 Crown Victoria. Ford moved to dismiss both suits for lack of personal jurisdiction. It argued that each state court had jurisdiction only if the company’s conduct in the State had given rise to the plaintiff’s claims. And that causal link existed, according to Ford, only if the company had designed, manufactured, or sold in the State the particular vehicle involved in the accident. In neither suit could the plaintiff make that showing. The vehicles were designed and manufactured elsewhere, and the company had originally sold the cars at issue outside the forum States. Only later resales and relocations by consumers had brought the vehicles to Montana and Minnesota. Both States’ supreme courts rejected Ford’s argument. Each held that the company’s activities in the State had the needed connection to the plaintiff’s allegations that a defective Ford caused instate injury” (Our emphasis).

Ford alleged that the Court should follow a causation-only approach. That means that as stated in the syllabus of the opinion that “In Ford’s view, due process requires a causal link locating jurisdiction only in the State where Ford sold the car in question, or the States where Ford designed and manufactured the vehicle. And because none of these things occurred in Montana or Minnesota, those States’ courts have no power over these cases.”

Fortunately, the Court did not follow that interpretation and stated that:

“To see why Ford is subject to jurisdiction in these cases (as Audi, Volkswagen, and Daimler were in their analogues), consider first the business that the company regularly conducts in Montana and Minnesota. See generally 395 Mont., at 488, 443 P. 3d, at 414; 931 N. W. 2d, at 748; supra, at 3?4. Small wonder that Ford has here conceded “purposeful availment” of the two States’ markets. See supra, at 7-8. By every means imaginable—among them, billboards, TV and radio spots, print ads, and direct mail— Ford urges Montanans and Minnesotans to buy its vehicles, including (at all relevant times) Explorers and Crown Victorias. Ford cars—again including those two models—are available for sale, whether new or used, throughout the States, at 36 dealerships in Montana and 84 in Minnesota. And apart from sales, Ford works hard to foster ongoing connections to its cars’ owners. The company’s dealers in Montana and Minnesota (as elsewhere) regularly maintain and repair Ford cars, including those whose warranties have long since expired. And the company distributes replacement parts both to its own dealers and to independent auto shops in the two States. Those activities, too, make Ford money. And by making it easier to own a Ford, they encourage Montanans and Minnesotans to become lifelong Ford drivers” (our emphasis).

[…]

“Here, resident-plaintiffs allege that they suffered in-state injury because of defective products that Ford extensively promoted, sold, and serviced in Montana and Minnesota. For all the reasons we have given, the connection between the plaintiffs’ claims and Ford’s activities in those States— or otherwise said, the “relationship among the defendant, the forum[s], and the litigation”—is close enough to support specific jurisdiction. Walden, 571 U. S., at 284 (internal quotation marks omitted). The judgments of the Montana and Minnesota Supreme Courts are therefore affirmed.”

In sum, in this David and Goliath scenario, the US Supreme Court sided with the consumers and promoted access to justice.

Back in November 2020, we reported about the Opinion delivered by Advocate General Bobek in the case Obala i lucice, C-307/19, in which he revisited the case law built upon the judgment of the Court of Justice in Pula Parking, C-551/15. This Thursday, the Court rendered its judgment in the case in question.

Legal and factual context

In brief summary, a daily parking ticket is issued for a car left in an on-street parking. A Croatian parking management entity commences enforcement proceedings for recovery of the parking ticket debt with a notary. The notarial writ of execution issued against a Slovenian company is challenged by the latter and two Croatian courts consider themselves lacking jurisdiction to hear the case. The case is then transferred to the referring court in order for it to deal with the negative conflict of competence.

A more extensive presentation of the legal and factual context of the case can be consulted in the previous post.

Questions/issues addressed

In his Opinion, at the request of the Court, AG Bobek did not address all the questions referred for a preliminary ruling. Opinion is confined to Questions 1 to 3 and 5 to 7. Not all the Questions addressed in the judgment either, yet for a different reason.

On the one hand, the Court considered that the questions pertaining to the Service Regulation (Questions 1 and 3) were inadmissible (paragraph 51). The referring court is facing a negative conflict of competence and the request for a preliminary ruling does not specify why this court takes the view that the resolution of the case in the main proceedings depends on the interpretation of the Service Regulation. It is worth noticing that this Regulation has been interpreted by AG Bobek in his Opinion, at points 88 to 105.

On similar grounds, the Court considered inadmissible the questions on to compatibility with Article 56 TFEU of the presumption that a contract is concluded by the act of parking in a designated space (on-street parking) (Questions 4 and, partially, 9). The referring court failed to expose the reasons that prompted it to inquire about the compatibility of that presumption with EU law (paragraph 52).

On the other hand, as mentioned in the previous post, the facts underlying the case pending before the national courts predate the accession of Croatia to the EU. Therefore, the Court considered itself not competent to answer the question on the interpretation of the Rome I and Rome II Regulations (Questions 8 and, partially, 9), these Regulation being not applicable ratione temporis to the facts in question (paragraph 58).

Thus, the Court was left with the remaining issues, namely, whether an action for payment of a debt relating to the unpaid public parking ticket is a dispute relating to ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of the Brussels I bis Regulation (Question 2), whether the special ground of jurisdiction for rights in rem is applicable to that action (Question 6) and, if it is not the case, whether the grounds of jurisdiction for contract/tort may be relied on by the applicant (Questions 5 and 7).

Notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’

According to the Court’s answer, an action for payment of a daily parking ticket, issued for parking in a designated space, in an on-street parking, imposed by a parking management entity falls within the scope of the notion of ‘civil and commercial matters’ (paragraph 73). This answer is preceded by a fine-grained analysis, accompanied by multiple references to the case law (paragraphs 59 et seq.).

The analysis carried out by the Court should be of a particular interest as it cannot be excluded that much can be inferred from it as to the qualification of a ‘civil and commercial matter’. To that effect, it could potentially be read against the background of the Opinion presented by AG Bobek. In fact, at its points 39 to 54, he distinguished two approaches adopted by the Court in its case law in order to establish whether the Regulations on ‘civil and commercial matters’ are applicable in a specific case. He defined them as ‘subject matter’ and ‘legal relationship’ approaches, and it was the latter that he favoured in the case at hand. Such parallel reading could be also supplemented by the lecture of remarks on that very issue made by one of the commentators.

Special ground of jurisdiction for rights in rem

Reiterating the autonomous nature of qualification that needs to be exercised in relation to Article 24(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, regardless of the qualification that the legal relationship receives under national law (paragraph 79), the Court held, in essence, that an action for payment of a daily parking ticket, issued for parking in a designated space, in an on-street parking, cannot be considered as an action brought in proceedings which have as their object ‘tenancies of immovable property’ (paragraph 80).

Contract/tort

Addressing ultimately the contract/tort distinction, the Court held that the action in question falls within the scope of Article 7(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (paragraph 89).

Next, referring to the Opinion, it considered that the ‘parking contract in question in the main proceedings’ can be qualified as a ‘contract for the provision of services’ in the sense of Article 7(1)(b) of the Regulation (paragraph 97).

The judgment itself can be consulted here (so far in French), with the request for a preliminary ruling being available here.

Readers of this blog may be interested in the book (in Chinese) entitled, The Development and Perfection of Chinese Inter-Regional Conflict of Laws: From the Perspective of the Achievements of Hague Conference on Private International Law. click here (angle.com.tw), written by Meirong Zhang, associate professor at UCASS (University of the Chinese Academy of Sciences) Law School, Beijing.  It should be noted that this book was published in early 2020.

The book has four Parts: 1. The development of Chinese inter-regional conflict of laws and HCCH achievements, 2. Inter-regional civil and commercial jurisdiction, 3. Interregional choice of law rules, and 4. Inter-regional judicial assistance in civil and commercial matters. From the preface (in English) by Hans van Loon (former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH)):   

“Mainland China, Hong Kong Special Administrative Region (SAR), Macao SAR and Taiwan not only all have their own systems of substantive civil, commercial and procedural law, they also have their own rules of private international law or conflict of laws. As a result, each region has its own rules to determine whether its courts and authorities have jurisdiction to deal with a civil or commercial issue, what law applies to such issues, whether, and under what conditions, a foreign judgment may be recognised and enforced, and how to organize administrative and judicial assistance to foreign jurisdictions. Moreover, these rules apply, in principle, not only in the relations between each region and third States, but also in the relations between the four regions.

In this pioneering work, Meirong Zhang analyses the existing diversity of private international law systems in the four Chinese regions, and explores ways to better coordinate these rules, and improve communication and cooperation among the regions. In our days of increasing mobility of persons, goods, services, capital and information, both among the Chinese regions and in their relations with third States resulting in multiple and manifold cross-border legal issues, this is a question of eminent practical importance. Central to this study are the daily interests and concerns of individuals, families, companies and other entities in our increasingly interconnected, complex world.

The author has wisely chosen an approach to her research that is principled and pragmatic at the same time. Her starting point is the Chinese concept of “regional pluralism of legal systems”.

She points out that this principle has three dimensions: “first, equality between different legal regions; second, understanding and respect for each legal region’s characteristics and its autonomous public policy; third, mutual progress and benefits for all four legal regions based upon cooperation between the people across all four legal regions”. Therefore, mutual respect, based on the recognition of equal value of each legal system, and cooperation grounded in mutual respect should govern the future of interregional private international law in China.

Whilst “regional pluralism of legal systems” is the starting point, Meirong Zhang adds a second pillar to support her proposals: “Chinese inter-regional conflict of laws should also be the carrier of the good values and spirit of mankind”. It would be a mistake to view this as an expression of naive idealism, and to think that it would suffice to focus on the interregional situation isolated from the rest of the world. Firstly, the increase in interregional cross border contacts among the four Chinese regions is in part the result of increased global interaction. Indeed contemporary globalization blurs the boundaries between local including interregional, and global affairs as never before. Secondly, and in part as a result of globalization, people all over the world are increasingly faced with challenges common to humankind, whether one thinks of the risks to which children around the world are exposed in cross-border situations, the global financial system, or the global climate. Global issues should preferably [be] solved globally. Common global approaches based on sound values are not only desirable but in the end also more effective.

Basing her proposals on the two pillars “regional pluralism of legal systems” and “a community with a shared future for humanity”, the author turns to the work of the Hague Conference on Private International Law for inspiration for the future development of private international law among the four regions of China. She has good reasons to do so. Firstly, as she points out, to a various extent and in various ways, the private international law systems of all four regions have already been influenced by the work of the Hague Conference. Secondly, as she also reminds us, arrangements have recently been concluded between Chinese regions, namely Mainland China and Hong Kong SAR, which have borrowed provisions and language from Hague Conventions. Thirdly, and most fundamentally, the Hague instruments reflect both the spirit of the Chinese concept of “regional pluralism of legal systems” – mutual respect, based on the recognition of equal value of each legal system, and the need for close cooperation on that basis – and globally accepted values. All Hague instruments are carefully crafted texts, and the result of inclusive negotiations among experts and delegates representing States from all continents, based on sound comparative research and input from stakeholders from across the world.

Hague Conventions are primarily aimed to provide common legal frameworks for relations between States, and provide expressly that ratifying States are not bound to apply them to conflicts solely between different legal systems with such States. Therefore, when China joins a Hague Convention, the rules of that Convention do not thereby apply to the relations between Mainland China and the other three regions. However, as the arrangements between Mainland China and Hongkong SAR demonstrate, they may provide a model for a private international law regime for interregional relations. A model, not a straightjacket: Hague Conventions have always made room for specific local including regional needs.

It is on this basis that Meirong Zhang then examines whether and to what extent the work of the Hague Conference could serve as inspiration for a common private international law framework for the four Chinese regions. Successively, she deals with the issue of jurisdiction of the courts and authorities of the four regions (Chapters 2-3), interregional choice of law rules (Chapters 4-7), administrative and judicial cooperation, and recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (Chapters 8-10). She does not advocate to slavishly copy the content of Hague Conventions into an interregional system. For example, and interestingly, she suggests that the specific characteristics of Chinese family realities may qualify or colour the notion of “the child’s best interests” (Conclusion Part II).

Obviously, an innovative work like this can only lay the foundation for more detailed reflections and research. But because the study is both principled and pragmatic, the groundwork it lays is strong. One senses the firm commitment of the author to the good causes of removing outdated and parochial obstacles to cross-border relationships and transactions, of facilitating the life of citizens in a complex mobile world, of safeguarding their civil interest and rights, of protecting weaker parties and vulnerable people and vital public interests and common global goods. Meirong Zhang has written a seminal study that will inspire many readers. It deserves a wide readership.” (Our emphasis)

 

by Apostolos Anthimos

By virtue of Law Nr. 3858/2010, Greece has adapted its legislation to the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency. The appearance of the law in practice is scarce; so is the case with respect to legal scholarship. A recent judgment by the Chamber of the Piraeus 1^st Instance court [date of publication: 15/12/2020] demonstrates the pitfalls in the field of recognition.

THE FACTS

The applicant is a foreign company registered in the USA. It requested the recognition of an order issued by the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The order was issued in accordance with Chapter 11 of the United States Bankruptcy Code, following a motion for entry of an order authorising rejection of certain unexpired leases and granting related relief. The motion was submitted by the applicant and a number of subsidiary companies. The applicant clarified that it acts as a trustee of the business, in his capacity as debtor in possession. There’s no direct reference in the judgment’s text, but I presume that the applicable provision must have been § 1107, 11 U.S. Code [Rights, powers, and duties of debtor in possession].

THE RULING

The Greek court confirmed its jurisdiction by a simple reference to the Law 3858/2010 and domestic procedural rules. Despite the lack of reasoning, the court was indeed competent: all subsidiary companies were apparently registered in Greece. In addition, the applicant had presumably assets in the jurisdiction.

Moving ahead however, the court dismissed the request as inadmissible, referring to Articles 9 and 15(1) of the Law (same numbering with the Model Law). In particular, the court considered that the application was not filed by a foreign representative for the purposes of Article 15(1). The applicant failed to furnish the documents provided for in Article 15(2), or any other documents which would prove the above. The sole documents submitted were the US order and its notification (does not explain to whom); the latter do not suffice for proving the capacity of the applicant to act as a trustee in bankruptcy (= foreign representative).

In addition, the request was also unfounded and contrary to Greek public policy. In accordance with Greek perceptions, it is not admissible to request jointly recognition for the entire group of companies (as the court notes). Hence, the request contravenes Article 6, and is to be dismissed.

SHORT NOTE

The judgment of the court proves that the subject matter needs extensive elaboration in Greece. First, a sheer reference to the US statutes would have convinced the Greek court to overcome the first hurdle. § 1107, 11 U.S. Code reads as follows: (a) Subject to any limitations on a trustee serving in a case under this chapter, and to such limitations or conditions as the court prescribes, a debtor in possession shall have all the rights, other than the right to compensation under section 330 of this title, and powers, and shall perform all the functions and duties, except the duties specified in sections 1106(a)(2), (3), and (4) of this title, of a trustee serving in a case under this chapter.

Second, the dismissal of the request by clinging to public policy is a recipe often followed when a court is faced with a different approach compared to domestic legislation. Unfortunately, the exceptional nature of the provision (see Article 6: …if the action would be manifestly contrary to the public policy of this State) did not convince the court to delve into the matter, and  discover some useful material tackling with the issue in question [see the UNCITRAL Legislative Guide on Insolvency Law – Part three: Treatment of enterprise groups in insolvency, p. 88: Although the Model Law has limited application in the enterprise group context, it is desirable that the access to courts and recognition of foreign proceedings it provides with respect to individual debtors also be provided with respect to insolvency proceedings involving members of the same enterprise group].

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

H.-P. Mansel/K. Thorn/R. Wagner: European Conflict of Law 2020: EU in crisis mode!

This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from December 2019 until December 2020. It provides an overview of newly adopted legal instruments and summarizes current projects that are presently making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They discuss both important decisions and pending cases before the CJEU as well as important decisions from German courts pertaining to the subject matter of the article. In addition, the article also looks at current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

C. Kranz: International private law aspects of taking security over membership rights in international financing transactions

In international financing transactions, pledges of membership rights play an important role. The private international law question, pursuant to which law the pledge is determined in the case of companies with a cross-border connection, cannot be answered in a generalised manner, but confronts those applying the law with some differentiations, in particular where membership rights have been certified in share certificates. The following analysis undertakes the attempt to clarify the key aspects from the perspective of German international private law.

F. Eichel: Choice of Court Agreements and Rules of Interpretation in the Context of Tort or Anti-trust Claims

In its rulings CDC (C-352/13) and Apple Sales (C-595/17) the ECJ gave a boost to the discussion on the range of choice of court agreements vis-à-vis antitrust claims. The article discusses a decision of the OLG München (Higher Regional Court of Munich, Germany) which has decided on this topic. In spite of a choice of court agreement pointing to Irish courts for “all suits to enforce this contract” (translation), the OLG München has held itself competent for antitrust claims, as – according to the reasons given – no interpretation of the contract was necessary. In the opinion of the author, this decision will no longer be relevant in Germany because it is not consistent with the decision Apple Sales, which has been rendered almost a year later. However, the reasons given by the OLG München are of particular interest, as it has made reference to the ECJ’s decision Brogsitter (C-548/12). Brogsitter is a decision on the range of the contractual jurisdiction of Art. 7 No. 1 Brussels Ia Regulation/Art. 5 No. 1 Lugano Convention 2007 vis-à-vis claims in tort. The present article has taken this as a reason to examine if the Brogsitter ruling can be understood as a “rule of interpretation” which comes into play once the intention of the parties of a choice of court agreement remains unclear. The article argues that in general the interpretation of choice of court agreements is subject to the lex causae of the main contract. However, with regard to torts and antitrust claims there are rules of interpretation arising from Art. 25 Brussels Ia Regulation itself. They are effective throughout the EU and are not influenced by the peculiarities of the national substantive law of the member states.

A. Kronenberg: Yet again: Negative consequences of the discrepancy between forum and ius in direct lawsuits after traffic accidents abroad

The Higher Regional Court (OLG) Saarbrücken had to decide upon appeal by a German-based limited liability company (GmbH) against a French motor vehicle liability insurer on various questions of French indemnity law and its interaction with German procedural law. The case once again highlights both well-known and less prominent disadvantages of the discrepancy between international jurisdiction and applicable law in actions which accident victims can bring directly against the insurer of the foreign party responsible for the accident at their place of residence.

M. Andrae: Once Again: On Jurisdiction when the Child’s Usual Residence Changes to Another Contracting Member State of the Hague Convention 1996

The discussed decision deals with the jurisdiction for a decision when it comes to a parent’s right of access. If at the time of the decision of the court of appeal the child has their habitual residence in a contracting state of the Hague Convention 1996 for the Protection of Children that is not a member state of the European Union, the Convention shall apply. For the solution it cannot be left open at which date the change of habitual residence occurred. If the change took place before the family court made the decision on the matter, the court of appeal must overturn this due to a lack of jurisdiction. This is done afterwards, the court of appeal lacks international jurisdiction to make a decision on the matter. The decision of the family court that has become effective remains in force in accordance with Art. 14 (1) Hague Convention 1996 until an amended decision by the authorities of the new habitual state of residence is made.

D. Stefer: Third-Party Effects of Assignment of Claims – Not a Case for Rome I

While an assignment of claims primarily involves the assignor, the assignee and the debtor of the assigned claim, it may nevertheless concern third parties that, though not directly involved in the transfer of the claim itself, may still be subjected to its effects. Such third parties can be creditors of the assignor, a liquidator or another potential assignee of the same claim. From a conflict of laws perspective, it is of particular relevance to determine which law applies to these thirdparty effects, since the outcome may differ depending on the jurisdiction. For instance, in case of multiple assignments of the same claim, German law gives priority to the assignment that was first validly concluded. Contrary to that, under Italian or English law priority will be given to that assignee who first notifies the debtor of the assignment. Yet, Article 14 of the Rome I Regulation does not contain an explicit rule governing the law applicable to third-party effects of an assignment. It is for that reason that the issue has been subject to constant debates. In particular, it was controversial to what extent the Rome I Regulation applied at all to the issue of third-party effects.

In BNP Paribas ./. Teambank AG, the Court of Justice recently held that no direct or implicit rule in that respect could be inferred from the Regulation. In the Court’s view, it was a deliberate choice of the EU legislature not to include rules governing the third-party effects of assignments of claims into the Regulation. Consequently, de lege lata the issue is subject to the national rules of private international law. Hence, under the rules of German private international law, the law applicable to the third-party effects of an assignment is the law that applies to the assigned claim.

F. Rieländer: The displacement of the applicable law on divorce by the law of the forum under Article 10 Rome III Regulation

In its judgment (C-249/19) the ECJ provided clarification on the interpretation of Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010 in a twofold respect. Firstly, Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010 does not lead to the application of the law of the forum if the applicable foreign law permits divorce, but subjects it to more stringent conditions than the law of the forum. Since Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010 applies only in situations in which the lex causae does not foresee divorce under any form, it is immaterial whether in the specific case the individual marriage can already be divorced or can still be divorced according to the applicable foreign law. Secondly, the ECJ held that the court seised must examine and establish the existence of the substantive conditions for a mandatory prior legal separation of the couple under the applicable foreign law, but is not obliged to order a legal separation. Unfortunately, the ECJ missed the opportunity to give a clear guidance on distinguishing substantive conditions foreseen by the applicable law from procedural questions falling within the law of the forum. Apart from this, it remains uncertain whether recourse to the law of the forum according to Article 10 of Regulation No 1259/2010 is possible if the lex causae knows the institution of divorce as such but does not make it available for the concrete type of marriage, be it a same-sex marriage or a polygamous marriage.

M. Scherer/O. Jensen: The Law Governing the Arbitration Agreement: A Comparative Analysis of the United Kingdom Supreme Court’s Decision in Enka v Chubb

On 9 October 2020 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom rendered its much-anticipated decision in Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi A.S. v OOO Insurance Company Chubb (Enka v Chubb). In an extensive judgment, the Supreme Court engaged in a detailed review of the different approaches to determining the law applicable to the arbitration agreement and set out the relevant test under English law. The present case note analyses the judgment, explains why the majority’s decision is well-reasoned but its conclusion not inevitable and provides a comparative analysis of the English approach. The result: the age-old question of which law governs the arbitration agreement (and why) has not lost in complexity and continues to engage courts and scholars around the world.

D. Otto: In-/validity of unconscionable arbitration clauses

Impecunious parties occasionally are an issue in international arbitration. The Canadian Supreme Court had to decide a case involving a – nominally self-employed – driver of Uber, who commenced a class action in a Canadian court to have Uber drivers declared as employees and to challenge violations of Canadian employment laws. His standard-term service agreement with Uber provided for the application of Dutch law and for mediation and arbitration in the Netherlands, which would have required the driver to advance mediation and arbitration fees in an amount of over 70 % of his total annual income from Uber. Uber requested the court to stay proceedings in favour of arbitration in the Netherlands. The Supreme Court held that the arbitration clause was unconscionable and void. The court opined that in general parties should adhere to agreed arbitration clauses. However, the court found that in this case the driver was not made aware of the high costs of arbitration in the Netherlands, that Uber had no legitimate interest to have such disputes decided in far away countries and that the unusual high costs of such proceedings (amounting to over 70 % of the drivers total annual income) effectively made it impossible for him to enforce his rights before the foreign arbitration tribunal. The court dodged the other issue (affirmed by the lower court) whether a dispute involving alleged violation of Ontario’s Employee Standards Act was arbitrable at all.

V. Bumbaca: Remarks on the judgment of the US Supreme Court “Monasky v. Taglieri”

The decision of the US Supreme Court in Monasky v. Taglieri confirms that the determination of the newborn/infant’s habitual residence should focus on the intention and habitual residence of his/her parents or caregiver – the analytical approach is parent-centered. The US Supreme Court ruling, in affirming the decision of the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, also clarifies that the determination of the habitual residence of the adolescent/older child should focus on his/her own acclimatization – the analytical approach is child-centered. According to the Supreme Court, the determination of the habitual residence of the child found to be within a transnational family conflict, such as that contemplating an international abduction or an international marital dispute concerning, inter alia, parental authority, must take into account the specific circumstances and facts of each individual case – fact-intensive determination. Based on the practice of other States and of the CJEU, this judgment considers that a predetermined formula applied to the analysis of the child’s habitual residence cannot be deemed to be in conformity with the objectives of the 1980 Hague Convention (applicable to the United States and Italy, both of which are involved in this case) – in particular, by virtue of the fact-based approach followed by this notion, unlike other connecting factors such as domicile and nationality. Regrettably, in affirming the decision the Supreme Court upheld the reasoning of the Court of Appeal as a whole. Thus, it set aside two elements which were not considered in depth by the Court and which in the author’s opinion it should have retained, regardless of the child’s age and given the child’s development within a potentially disruptive family context: The principle of the best interests of the child and the degree of instability attributed to the child’s physical presence before the wrongful removal.

E. Jayme: Canada: Export restriction for cultural property of national importance: The Federal Court of Appeal – Attorney General of Canada and Heffel Gallery Limited, 2019 FCA 82 (April 16, 2019) – restores the decision of the Canadian Cultural Export Review Board which rejected the export permit for a painting by the French artist Gustave Caillebotte

Canada: The case decided by the Federal Court of Appeal (Attorney General of Canada, Appellant, and Heffel Gallery Limited, Respondent, and 10 Canadian cultural institutions as interveners, 2019 FCA 82 [April 16, 2019]) involved the following facts: A Toronto based auction house sold a painting by the French impressionist Gustave Caillebotte (“Iris bleus”) to a commercial gallery based in London, and applied to the Department of Canadian Heritage for a cultural export permit, which was refused following the recommendation of an expert examiner. Then, the auction house requested a review of that decision before the Canadian Cultural Export Review Board which rejected the export permit application. Then, the auction house asked for a judicial review of that decision: The Federal Court held that the Board’s decision was unreasonable and remitted the case to another panel for reconsideration. This decision of the Federal Court was appealed by the Attorney General of Canada. Thus, the case passed to the Canadian Federal Court of Appeal which allowed the appeal, dismissed the application for judicial review and restored the decision of the Board, i.e. the refusal to issue an export permit for the painting, in the words of the court: “I am of the view that the Federal Court erred in failing to properly apply the standard of reasonableness. The Board’s interpretation of its home statute was entitled to deference, and the Federal Court’s failure to defer to the Board’s decision was a function of a disguised correctness review.”

The case involves important questions of international commercial law regarding art objects, questions which arise in situations where art objects have a close connection to the national identity of a State. The Canadian decision shows the importance of experts for the decision of whether a work of art is part of the national cultural heritage. The Canadian cultural tradition is based on English and French roots. In addition, the Canadian impressionism has been widely influenced by the development of French art. Thus, it is convincing that the painting by Caillebotte which had been owned and held by a private Canadian collector for 60 years forms part of the Canadian cultural heritage, even if the painter never visited Canada. In addition, the case is interesting for the general question, who is entitled to decide that question: art experts, other boards or judges. The court applied the standards of reasonableness and deference to the opinion of the art experts.

A. Kampf: International Insolvency Law of Liechtenstein

Due to various crises, the International Insolvency Law increasingly comes into the focus of currently discussed juridical issues. With reference to this fact, the essay gives an overview of the corresponding legal situation in Liechtenstein, considering that the EU regulation 2015/848 on insolvency proceedings is not applicable. In particular, the author concerns himself with the complex of recognition and the insofar existing necessity of reciprocity. In comparison to the regulation mentioned above, the author comes to identical or at least similar results. He votes for necessity to be abolished and argues for recognition not only of movable assets being located in Liechtenstein.

More information will follow soon. Please click here for a link to the registration page. The Facebook page of the events is available here.

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

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

The first edition of the EFFORTS Newsletter was just issued and is available here.

Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802

With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union