Archive for category: Case law

Whether a third party remains bound by a forum selection clause after acquiring a bill of lading is a matter for the court handling the case, governed by its private international law. Therefore, the ‘new’ conflict-of-laws rule in Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, whereby the court of a Member State, chosen by the parties, has jurisdiction based on the parties’ agreement ‘unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State’, is not applicable. However, the principle of primacy dictates that national laws cannot contradict EU law. Therefore, Spanish special requirements for the subrogation of a jurisdiction clause are not valid.

This was the view of the CJEU in its judgment in the joined cases Maersk, C-345/22 et al, EU:C:2024:349 between Spanish insurance companies and defending maritime transport companies that objected to Spanish jurisdiction referring to jurisdiction clauses pointing out the UK.

Background

In three separate Spanish cases involving disputes between foreign maritime transport companies and Spanish insurance companies, similar issues regarding the validity of jurisdiction clauses arose.

Common to all cases was that the insurance companies had claims against the maritime companies for goods allegedly damaged during transport. As the insurance companies had not originally ordered the goods, but were successors in law of the claims, the main issue that arose in the disputes was whether the jurisdiction clauses entered in the original bills of lading were binding for the insurance companies. These clauses all designated the High Court of Justice of London. Therefore, the transport companies objected to Spanish jurisdiction meaning that the forum selection clauses should have derogative effect for Spanish courts.

To decide the issue of jurisdiction, the Spanish court, where all three cases were filed, referred questions to the CJEU on the meaning of jurisdiction clauses under the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Judgment

The CJEU began by addressing the issue of the applicability of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Although the UK has left the EU, the cases were initiated in the transition period contemplated by the Withdrawal Agreement, during which EU law continued to apply. The Court accordingly found that the Regulation was applicable.

Regarding the substantive issue on the subrogation of a jurisdiction clause, the CJEU clarified that the conflicts-of-laws rule in Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation does not cover third-party subrogation matters. Said provision prescribes that the ‘substantive validity’ of a jurisdiction clause shall be governed by the designated country’s law, but issues related to a third party’s adherence to such clauses do not fall within its purview.

Having held that the special conflicts-of-laws rule included in Article 25 was not applicable to the issue of subrogation, the CJEU clarified that older case-law on subrogation of jurisdiction clauses still applied. Here, it must be noted that the choice-of-law rule in article 25 was a novelty when it was introduced in the Brussels I bis Regulation. The equivalent provisions in the old Brussels I Regulation and in the Brussels Convention contained no such conflict-of-laws rule. In older case-law, it has been established that the question of whether a third-party holder of a bill of lading is bound by a jurisdiction clause primarily is subject to the conflict-of-laws rules of the forum where the matter is brought. However, a harness has been put to this autonomy of the Member States so that if the governing law pointed out by the national conflict-of-laws rule does not allow for substitution, a court ‘must ascertain whether that third party has actually accepted the jurisdiction clause’ (paragraph 51 of the judgment with cited case-law).

Lastly, the CJEU dealt with how the Spanish court could fill out the gap through application of substantive law. Under Spanish law, a third-party successor of a bill of lading subrogates all rights and obligations of the original contract with one exception. A jurisdiction clause is only subrogated if it has been negotiated individually and separately with the third party. The CJEU held that such a provision would undermine Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Such a circumvention of EU law is not compatible with the EU principle of primacy. Thus, it cannot be applied.

Comment

The Maersk judgment clarifies that third party effects are not subject to the ‘new’ conflict-of-laws rule in article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. From a predictability perspective, the outcome is welcome. Through the judgment, it can be established that the choice of law rule in article 25 entails no radical change to the case law already established under article 25. Rather, the choice of law rule seems to apply only to issues of material validity that were unclear under the older regulation.

Another point worth noting is that even if Article 25 is not formally applicable, member states are not allowed to do whatever they want. This is clearly illustrated by the reasoning regarding the application of Spanish law that would not accept the subrogation of a jurisdiction clause as easily as other clauses of the contract. In my opinion, this clearly shows that the CJEU aims to do justice to the intentions of the original parties, which must have been to let a specific court adjudicate all matters.

After all, the disallowance of a jurisdiction clause could be devastating for a party that in good faith has presupposed that only a specific court will have jurisdiction. Not upholding such a cornerstone in dispute resolution could result in surprising outcomes. Ultimately, fostering predictable justice benefits all stakeholders involved in international transactions.

In a judgment of 20 February 2024, the Rotterdam District Court awarded a provisional measure in relation to the transfer of property rights regarding a property situated in Spain on condition that proceedings on the merits would be initiated by the claimant before the competent Spanish court.

Facts

A person identified in the case as [person01] entered into a sale-purchase agreement with a Dutch company, Intercare B.V., regarding an apartment and a parking place situated in Marbella, Spain. The agreement established that the transfer of the property to the purchaser should be carried out by 30 June 2022. The apartment had not been handed over to the purchaser until the date of the trial, although substantial payments were made towards the defendant, Intercare B.V. It is not clear from the judgment how much of the purchase price had still to be paid or whether payments were made by [person01] on invoices towards some bankrupt entities the claimant owned.

At a point [person01] became suspicious that Intercare B.V. wanted to sell the apartment to its director, [person02], or to a third party. [person01] considered initiating court proceedings to prevent this. The contract concluded by the parties contained a choice of court clause for a Spanish court in accordance with Article 25 Brussels I bis. However, the claimant, [persono1], did not lodge a claim with the chosen Spanish court for fear that the procedure would have taken too long and would put the claimant’s property rights at risk. Instead, [person01] brought a claim before the Rotterdam District Court requesting a provisional judgment (vonnis in kort geding). The provisional measure sought was to prohibit Intercare B.V. from undertaking any action that would lead to the transfer of the ownership of the apartment to any other person than [person01] or to establish any limited property right in relation to the apartment, subject to monetary penalty.

The defendant, Intercare B.V., argued that the Rotterdam District Court did not have jurisdiction to deal with this request for a provisional judgment. The decision does not provide specific details on the grounds Intercare B.V. relied on for this point of defense. Alternatively, Intercare B.V. argued that if the court found itself to have jurisdiction, the sale-purchase agreement was actually terminated according to Spanish law at the expiration of the date set for transferring the property rights.

What is interesting for the present analysis is not the situation of the contract, but the analysis of the Dutch court in relation to its jurisdiction for ordering provisional and protective measures concerning property rights.

The Judgment

The Rotterdam District Court retained to have jurisdiction to deal with [person01]’s request based on Article 35 Brussels I bis regarding provisional and protective measures.

The judge appreciated that even though the claim “formulated in the summons by [person01], read in isolation, does not constitute a provisional or protective measure”, the “demand, in view of the rest of the summons, cannot reasonably be interpreted in any other way than being intended to provisionally prevent the apartment from being transferred to a third party or burdened with limited property rights”. Hence, the court issued a provisional judgment in accordance with the claimant’s request.

The provisional measure was conditional upon [person01] filing a claim on the merits with the competent Spanish court within a period of six weeks from the date of the provisional judgment. If [person01] would not file a claim on the merits with the competent Spanish court within the set timeframe, the requested provisional measure would lapse. At the same time, if Intercare B.V. would undertake any action to transfer the ownership of the apartment to any other person than [person01] or to establish any limited property right in relation to the concerned apartment, or both, it would have to pay a penalty of €50,000.00 to [person01].

Assessment

The judgment of the Rotterdam District Court is interesting in my opinion for two aspects, having provisional or protective measures issued in relation to property rights for immovable property situated in another Member State and the reasoning the court used to assess whether it had to deal with a request that qualified as a provisional or protective measure.

The Rotterdam District Court did not have jurisdiction with regard to the main claim regarding the immovable property in Spain or the contract the parties concluded in relation to this property. The parties had made a choice of court. This is an element that the Dutch judge addresses from the beginning. However, based on Article 35 Brussels I bis the judge retains itself competent to consider and order provisional or protective measure based on Dutch law. For this, the judge assesses the two requirements that have to be fulfilled in order for the Dutch court to proceed on the basis of Article 35: the measure ordered aims to prevent future problems of enforcement of a final decision and the measures sought are meant to be enforced in a jurisdiction other than the one that is competent to decide on the merit. The compliance with these requirement is to be tested on a case by case basis, and these requirements were considered to be fulfilled by the court.

The provisional judgment is seeking to preserve a legal situation that would safeguard the claimant’s presumed property rights, without leading to a variation of those rights to be established by another court (Reichert and Kockler v. Dresdner Bank AG, Case C-261/90, para 31). Until a judgment on the merits is issued by the competent Spanish court deciding on Intercare B.V.’s duty to transfer the ownership, the kort geding is meant to prevent a transfer of the rights to a third party or any actions that would diminish the content of those rights with the creation of limited property rights. According to the Dutch judge, although both parties had “completely different stories” about why the transfer did not take place at the established date, both positions appeared reasonable. Therefore, ordering a provisional measure preserving the status quo of the legal situation until a decision on the merits with regard to [person01]’s property rights would be obtained would protect those rights from a later risk of enforcement difficulties. The urgency to act promptly in order to safeguard those rights is not a mandatory requirement, but it can be a relevant element of assessment used by the national judge (see on this also Thomas Garber, ‘Jurisdiction over provisional, including protective, measures’ in Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski (eds.), European Commentaries on Private International Law. Brussels Ibis Regulation, 2^nd Revised Edition, p. 781-782). This appears to have had some weight in the judgment, although it is not an element that is expressly addressed in the analysis; otherwise, it would have been sufficient for the claimant to lodge a request with the chosen Spanish court.

Further, given the lack of clarity as to the situation of the sale-purchase agreement and of the payments made, the provisional measures were made conditional upon the claimant, [person01], initiating proceedings on the merits in Spain within a period of six weeks from the date of the Dutch judgment. This condition is meant to preserve the temporary character of the measures set in the kort geding.

The other requirement to be fulfilled is that the enforcement of the provisional measures has to take place in the Netherlands. Do the measures ordered have a ‘real connecting link’ (Van Uden Maritime BV, trading as Van Uden Africa Line and Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another, Case C-391/95, para. 40) with the territory of the Netherlands? The judgment directly addresses this in the reasoning and links this to the fact the parties are both domiciled in the Netherlands. The provisional measures are in personam provisional measures resulting from a contractual relation and are ordered against a Dutch legal person present within the jurisdiction of the court that adopted the measures (see also Carlos Santaló Gorís, “Article 35” in Marta Requejo Isidro (ed.), Brussels I Bis. A Commentary on Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012, 2022, p. 535-536). On one side, a possible breach of the prohibition to transfer the property rights or to create limited property rights on a third party in relation to a Spanish immovable property would be difficult to enforce against Intercare B.V. in the Netherlands given the immovables are in Spain. On the other side,  the financial penalty the defendant would have to pay would most likely be related to Dutch assets or bank accounts. Thus, at least part of the provisional measures have a real link with the Netherlands. In terms of legal strategy, having a Dutch judgment to enforce a penalty would be faster than needing to obtain a protective measure in Spain and then having to enforce it in case of breach in the Netherlands.

The other interesting element of this provisional judgment is the way the court proceeds to assess whether the request qualifies as a provisional or protective measure, considering it is related to a duty to transfer property rights and not to establish limited property rights in relation to an immovable property. Such claims would normally lead to an expectation that an assessment on the merits is required rather than a provisional or protective measure. The wording used by the claimant in the summons appeared to request an assessment on the merits. However, the Dutch judge considered it had to look further than this immediate appearance of the claim. For this, the judge relied on criteria provided by the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad) in a recent judgment. In a judgment from 12 January 2024 (ECLI:NL:HR:2024:22), the Supreme court established that in order to interpret what a claimant is requesting from the court, the court should take into consideration not only the wording of the claimant’s request but also the content of the underlying claim, how the defendant understood or should have understood the claim, and the debate that took place between the parties in relation to the claim. Taking all these elements into account, the Rotterdam District Court judge considered that the claim could not be interpreted in any other way than a request for a provisional measure to prevent the property rights on an apartment to be transferred to a third party or to restrict the establishment of limited property rights. This national interpretation criteria explains why the Dutch judge proceeded to interpret the claimant’s request and could frame it as a request for a provisional or protective measure according to Article 35 Brussels I bis.

Personally, I find it would have been interesting to see also some parallel being made with the CJEU judgment in Solvay (Case C-616/10, para. 40-43) for the provisional measures analysis. Although in Solvay the discussion concerned intellectual property rights protected by Article 24(4) Brussels I bis and in the present case the dispute did not regard rights in rem according to Article 24(1) Brussels I bis, but personal rights resulting from what appears to be a breach of a contractual relation, the measures do have an effect on ownership rights in immovable property. This difference in legal grounds based on Brussels I-bis may explain why the reasoning in Solvay was not part of the assessment of the the Dutch court. The case is not an easy one for the characterisation of the rights concerned – in rem or in personam – and the possibility of granting protective measures in relation to rights that appear to be concerning rights in rem rather than in personam.

This post was prepared by Nadia Rusinova (The Hague University of Applied Sciences).

---

In a world where marriages often transcend borders and cultural lines, the challenges of international family law become ever more evident. Two recent Dutch court decisions provide compelling insights into how the courts navigate complex cases involving divorce and marital property regimes with ties to non-EU countries. These cases highlight the nuanced and complex nature of international family law, where courts must balance the legal traditions and principles of multiple jurisdictions with the principles of equity and fairness.

Iranian-Dutch Case

The first case concerns Iranian-Dutch spouses. They married in 2014 in Iran and moved to the Netherlands in 2015, having their child born there in 2016. Since 2020 they are also both Dutch nationals. The wife seeks divorce before the Dutch court and requests application of Iranian law to the matrimonial property regime, which the husband disputes.

In regard to the divorce and parental responsibility, the court holds that since the parties and the child have their habitual residence in the Netherlands, the Dutch court has jurisdiction under Article 3 and Article 7 of Brussels II ter Regulation.  Pursuant to Article 5 of Matrimonial Property Regulation, the court holds it has jurisdiction to rule on the division of the marital property, as it has jurisdiction over the divorce application. The main question remaining is which law is applicable to the matrimonial property regime – Iranian or Dutch, and did a change in the applicable law occur since the conclusion of the marriage.

In its decision (ECLI:NL:RBDHA:2023:22043) the court finds that the parties haven’t chosen applicable law before their marriage. Therefore, 1978 HCCH Convention on the Law Applicable to Matrimonial Property Regimes  is to be applied – a HCCH instrument, ratified by only three states, that being France, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. In the Netherlands it applies to marriages solemnised after 1 September 1992. Pursuant to Article 4, paragraph 2, sub b of this Convention, the court therefore determines that Iranian law applies to the matrimonial property regime from the date of the marriage since at the time of the marriage the parties had common Iranian nationality.

However, subsequently both parties acquired Dutch nationality and have resided in the Netherlands since 2015. The court then reaches the conclusion that from the moment of the acquisition of Dutch nationality and habitual residence in the Netherlands by both spouses, a change in the applicable law occurred. The wife is a Dutch national since December 22, 2020, and on the grounds of Article 7, paragraph 2, sub 1 of the 1978 HCCH Convention, Dutch law applies to the matrimonial property regime from that moment on. Article 8(1) of the 1978 HCCH Convention prevents any retrospective effect of such change, and for this reason Iranian law continues to apply to the assets that belonged to the parties before that change.

Morrocan-Dutch Case

The second case is a rather extraordinary one. It deals with the question which is the applicable law to the matrimonial property regime of the spouses – Dutch or Moroccan, and how should “fairness” be achieved. If it was the Dutch law, the wife would receive 186 000 EUR as a result of the division of the assets, while if it was Moroccan law – only 77 000 EUR.

The spouses have Dutch and Moroccan nationalities. They married in 1983 in Morocco, but have lived in the Netherlands since their marriage. The husband requests the Dutch court to grant divorce between the parties and to declare that the matrimonial property regime of the parties is governed by Moroccan law (based on Dutch conflict of law rule). The wife contests only the latter claim and asks the court to apply Dutch law to their matrimonial property regime. She argues that application of Moroccan law is unacceptable against the standards of reasonableness and fairness as it is “unacceptable if she were to be left with virtually nothing after forty years of marriage” (Note: for marriages concluded before 1 January 2018, the statutory matrimonial regime under the Dutch law is universal community of property). The unacceptability criterion was claimed to stem from the Dutch Supreme Court decision in Chelouche/Van Leer.

In order to substantiate the unacceptability of the application of Moroccan law in the present case, the woman has firstly argued that marriage is most closely linked to Dutch law. The couple, for over forty years of marriage, resided in the Netherlands, had children who were born and raised in the Netherlands, took out a mortgage on the house the husband owned prior to their marriage, always acted as if they were in a universal community of property regime, and did not maintain strictly separate finances. The husband has not paid the dowry owed under Moroccan law and she had not previously requested it, assuming that all assets were shared in a universal community of property.

In the decision (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:1025) the court attaches no value to the woman’s arguments, stating that the question of what the first habitual residence after marriage was arises only when there is no common nationality. If this cannot be determined, then the question of which law the marriage is most closely linked to is to be addressed, taking all circumstances into account. The fact that these two criteria would both lead to the application of Dutch law in this case is not in dispute, but that in itself is no reason to ignore the connecting factor of common Moroccan nationality.

Moreover, when concluding the marriage, it was not unforeseeable for the woman that Moroccan law might apply. The woman could presume that because the parties had Moroccan nationality and were married in Morocco, whereby a dowry was agreed (and partly paid) in accordance with Moroccan tradition. There is therefore indeed a close link between the parties with Morocco and Moroccan law. In addition, the parties each had their own bank account, from which they each paid household costs which could be contrary to the argument they lived as in community of property.

The court further stipulates that the woman will not be left with “virtually nothing”. Her total acquisition under the Moroccan law ultimately will amount to at least € 77,400. If the Dutch law would be applicable and there had been universal community of property, the woman would have received approximately € 186,000, but the mere fact that the woman would have a greater benefit is insufficient to conclude that the application of Moroccan law is unacceptable.

After the Easter pause the Court of Justice will resume its core activities. As of today, two decisions and two opinions are expected in private international law matters in April 2024.

On Thursday 11 April , a chamber composed by judges O. Spineanu-Matei (reporting), J.C. Bonichot and L.S. Rossi will hand down its ruling in case C-183/23, Credit Agricole Bank Polska.

The request for a preliminary ruling from the Sąd Rejonowy dla Warszawy-Śródmieścia w Warszawie (Poland), lodged on 22 March 2023, focuses on Brussels I bis Regulation and jurisdiction in absentia.

In the main dispute, Credit Agricole Bank Polska SA (‘the applicant’), claimed the amount of 10 591.64 zlotys (PLN), plus interest and legal costs, under a credit agreement for the purchase of an Apple 11 Pro phone concluded by the applicant with the defendant. Both the credit agreement and the application indicated an address for the defendant. The referring court issued an order for payment in the context of writ-of-payment proceedings.

Attempts to serve a copy of the application together with a copy of the order for payment and instructions for the defendant were unsuccessful. The referring court appointed a representative in absentia, who is a lawyer, for the defendant; said representative lodged a statement of opposition to the order for payment, without raising any objections regarding jurisdiction on the part of the Polish court. The efforts of the referring court to establish the residential address of the defendant brought no results; it shall now asses ex officio its jurisdiction.

In this context, it addresses the following questions to the Court in Luxembourg:

Is Article 6(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the provisions of that regulation apply to the determination of jurisdiction in a case against a consumer in absentia who is not a national of any Member State and regarding whom, first, it is known that his or her last known place of residence was in a Member State and, second, there is credible evidence that he or she is no longer domiciled in the territory of that Member State, where there is no credible evidence suggesting that he or she has left the territory of the European Union to return to the State of which he or she is a national?

Is Article 26(1) and (2) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that an appearance entered by a representative appointed in accordance with the national law of a Member State to represent that consumer in absentia replaces the appearance of the consumer and permits the assumption that a court of that Member State has jurisdiction despite the existence of credible evidence that the consumer is no longer domiciled in the territory of the Member State concerned?

On the same day, Advocate General M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona will deliver his opinion regarding C-187/23, Albausy. The case concerns the interpretation of Article 67 of the Succession Regulation, on the issuance of European Certificates of Succession. Article 67 provides  that the issuing authority must issue the Certificate without delay when the elements to be certified have been established under the law applicable to the succession or under any other law applicable to specific elements. However, according to the second subparagraph of Article 67(1), the issuing authority “shall not issue the Certificate in particular if: (a) the elements to be certified are being challenged; or (b) the Certificate would not be in conformity with a decision covering the same elements”.

The questions submitted to the Court are as follows.

(a) Must point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of the Succession Regulation be interpreted as meaning that it also refers to challenges raised in the procedure for issuing the European Certificate of Succession itself, which the court is not permitted to examine, and that it does not refer only to challenges raised in other proceedings?

(b) If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative: Must point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of the Succession Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a European Certificate of Succession may not be issued even if challenges have been raised in the procedure for issuing the European Certificate of Succession, but they have already been examined in the proceedings for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance under German law?

(c) If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative: Must point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of the Succession Regulation be interpreted as covering any challenges, even if they have not been substantiated and no formal evidence is to be taken of that fact?

(d) If the answer to Question (a) is in the negative: In what form must the court state the reasons that led it to reject the challenges and to issue the European Certificate of Succession?

A hearing took place last January, as announced on this blog. The 5th Chamber (judges E. Regan, Z. Csehi, M. Ilešič -reporting-, I. Jarukaitis and D. Gratsias) will deliver its decision, also regarding the admissibility of the request, in due time.

Advocate General L. Medina’s opinion on C-394/22, Oilchart International, is expected one week later. The Hof van beroep te Antwerpen (Belgium) has requested a ruling of the Court of Justice to remove doubts on the first Insolvency Regulation [Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings]:

(a) Must Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation (Regulation No 1215/2012) in conjunction with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation (Regulation No 1346/2000) be interpreted as meaning that the term ‘bankruptcy, proceedings relating to the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions and analogous proceedings’ in Article 1(2)(b) of the Brussels Ia Regulation includes also proceedings in which the claim is described in the summons as a pure trade receivable, without any mention of the respondent’s previously declared bankruptcy, whereas the actual legal basis of that claim is the specific derogating provisions of Netherlands bankruptcy law (Article 25(2) of the Wet van 30 september 1893, op het faillissement en de surséance van betaling (Law of 30 September 1893 on bankruptcy and suspension of payment; ‘NFW’)) and whereby:

– it must be determined whether such a claim must be considered a verifiable claim (Article 26 NFW in conjunction with Article 110 thereof) or an unverifiable claim (Article 25(2) NFW),

–  it appears that the question whether both claims can be brought simultaneously and whether one claim does not appear to exclude the other, taking into account the specific legal consequences of each of those claims (inter alia, in terms of the possibilities of calling for a bank guarantee deferred after the bankruptcy), may be determined in accordance with the rules specific to Netherlands bankruptcy law?

And further

(b) Can the provisions of Article 25(2) [NFW] be regarded as compatible with Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation, in so far as that legislative provision would allow such a claim (Article 25(2) NFW) to be brought before the court of another Member State instead of before the insolvency court of the Member State in which the bankruptcy was declared?

As already reported on the occasion of the hearing last February, the main proceedings concern a claim by the appellant, the Dutch company Oilchart International NV, for the payment of an invoice for the bunkering of an ocean-going vessel in the port of Sluiskil (the Netherlands). That invoice was still unpaid when the debtor became insolvent. Due to the provisions contained in bank guarantees, a claim for payment is being brought before a Belgian court.

The publication of the decision corresponding to joined cases C-345/22, Maersk, C-346/22, Mapfre España Compañía de Seguros y Reaseguros, and C-347/22, Maersk, is scheduled for Thursday 27. A Spanish Court of Appeal requires the interpretation of Article 25(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 in the context of claims for damages based on the loss of goods transported by sea. They raise the issue as to the conditions under which a jurisdiction clause in a contract for the carriage of goods by sea evidenced by a bill of lading may be enforced against a third party that subsequently acquired those goods, thereby becoming a third-party holder of that bill of lading.

The questions are essentially the same in all three cases. I reproduce here those in C-345/22:

(1) Does the provision in Article 25 of [the Brussels Ia Regulation] which establishes that the automatic nullity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction must be examined in accordance with the law of the Member State on which the parties have conferred jurisdiction also apply – in a situation such as that in the main proceedings – to the question of the validity of the application of the clause to a third party who is not a party to the contract containing the clause in question?

(2) Where the bill of lading is delivered to a third-party consignee of the goods who was not involved in the conclusion of the contract between the shipper and the maritime carrier, is a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Shipping Law 14/2014 [Ley Ley 14/2014, de 24 de julio, de Navegación Marítima], which requires that, in order to be enforceable against that third party, the jurisdiction clause must have been negotiated “individually and separately” with that party, compatible with Article 25 and with the case-law of the  Court of Justice interpreting that article?

(3) Is it possible under EU law for Member States’ legislation to establish additional validity requirements in order for jurisdiction clauses included in bills of lading to be enforceable against third parties?

(4) Does a rule such as that in Article 251 of the Law 14/2014 – which establishes that the subrogation of the third-party holder is only partial, and does not apply to prorogation of jurisdiction clauses – entail the introduction of an additional requirement for the validity of such clauses, contrary to Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation?

In his opinion of 16 November 2023, Advocate General A.M. Collins proposes that the Court answer the questions referred as follows:

(1) Article 25(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause agreed between a carrier and a shipper which is incorporated in a bill of lading is enforceable against a third-party holder of the bill of lading if, on acquiring that bill, it succeeded to the shipper’s rights and obligations. It is for the court seised of the matter to answer that question in accordance with national substantive law as established by applying its rules of private international law. The rule in that provision that the substantive validity of a jurisdiction clause is to be assessed in accordance with the law of the Member State of the court or courts designated in that clause does not govern the enforceability of a jurisdiction clause incorporated in a bill of lading against a third-party holder of that bill.

(2) Article 25(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as precluding national legislation under which a third party to a contract for the carriage of goods by sea concluded between a carrier and a shipper that acquires the bill of lading evidencing that contract is subrogated to all the shipper’s rights and obligations, with the exception of the jurisdiction clause incorporated therein, which is enforceable against it only where it negotiated that clause individually and separately.

The second prong of the answer could be (mistakenly) read as impling that Article 468 of the Spanish Ley de Navegación Marítima is non-compatible with EU law. The provision, entitled ‘Clauses on jurisdiction and arbitration’, actually includes a caveat to the contrary. It literally states:

Without prejudice to the provisions of the international agreements applicable in Spain and to the rules of [EU] law, clauses which provide for submission to a foreign jurisdiction or to arbitration abroad, contained in contracts for the use of a ship or in ancillary shipping contracts, shall be void and deemed not to exist if those clauses have not been individually and separately negotiated.

In particular, the insertion of a jurisdiction or arbitration clause in the printed terms and conditions of any of the contracts referred to in the preceding paragraph shall not in itself constitute evidence of compliance with the requirements laid down therein.

The decision on the joined cases will be taken by the 6th Chamber, composed by judges P.G. Xuereb, A. Kumin (reporting) and I. Ziemele.

Introduction

Beverly Hills Polo Club branded goods are sold in the USA and the UK. Trade marks in the USA are owned by X. Corresponding trade marks in the UK are owned by Y. Trade mark law is territorial. Does Amazon infringe UK trade mark law by advertising the USA branded goods on its USA website (amazon.com) and making them available for shipment to the UK if transactions are structured in such a way that the sale takes place in the USA, the title to the goods and the risk of loss passes in the USA, the UK purchaser imports the goods in a personal capacity as owner and the goods are transported by an Amazon-chosen carrier?

This is the question that the UK Supreme Court addressed in Lifestyle Equities CV v Amazon UK Services Ltd [2024] UKSC 8. A key feature of the case is that it was brought before the Brexit transition period, so the question fell to be decided by reference to Parliament and Council Regulation 2017/1001 of 14 June 2017 on the European Union trade mark.

Judgment

On 6 March 2024, the court unanimously (Lord Briggs and Lord Kitchin, with whom Lord Hodge, Lord Hamblen and Lord Burrows agreed) held that Amazon targeted the marketing and sale of USA branded goods on its USA website at consumers in the UK and, therefore, infringed the claimant’s UK trade mark.

The concept of targeting of a commercial activity carried on through a website is, of course, a well-known feature of EU private international law, appearing, for instance, in Article 17(1)(c) of the Brussels I bis Regulation and Article 6(1)(b) of the Rome I Regulation. The CJEU clarified the concept in judgments concerning the Brussels I Regulation (Joined Cases C-585/08 and C-144/09 Pammer v Reederei Karl Schlüter GmbH & Co KG; Hotel Alpenhof GesmbH v Heller) and EU trade mark (Case C-324/09 L’Oréal SA v eBay International AG), copyright (Case C-5/11 Criminal proceedings against Donner) and database protection (Case C-173/11 Football Dataco Ltd v Sportradar GmbH) law.

The Supreme Court specifically elaborated on four points of law:

(1) The appropriate perspective: The question whether an advertisement or offer for sale is targeted at consumers in the UK is to be considered from the perspective of the average consumer. The average consumer is reasonably well informed and reasonably observant but does not call for the application of a statistical test; nor does this person represent a statistical average.

(2) The question to be answered: The question is, in substance, whether the average consumer would consider the website to be directed at him or her. The court must evaluate all the relevant circumstances, including the appearance of the website, how it responds to the presence of the consumer, whether it is possible actually to buy goods and have them delivered, and how that is done. The court should conduct a journey through the website in question from landing to a decision to buy, before answering the question.

(3) The role of subjective intention: The task of the court is to decide whether the foreign trader’s activities, viewed objectively, from the perspective of the average consumer, are targeted at such consumers in the UK. The establishment of a subjective intention can ease the path to a finding of objective targeting.

(4) No single meaning: It is enough that a significant proportion of the relevant consumers (that is, those who are reasonably well informed and circumspect) would consider the website to be directed and targeted at them.

The court indicated that the following features of Amazon’s USA website in particular indicated the targeting of consumers in the UK:

– the landing page showed the message: “Deliver to United Kingdom”. Clicking on or hovering over that revealed a pop-up box saying “We ship internationally. We’re showing you items that ship to United Kingdom.”

– the landing page contained a slideshow. One of its slides was a coloured section showing an aeroplane, a map of the world and a message saying “Welcome to Amazon.com. We ship over 45 million products around the world”. Another slide contained the message “Click here to shop in your local currency” and displaying the sign for sterling.

– a UK consumer who had not changed his or her delivery address would see the “Deliver to United Kingdom” message and would be told under each displayed product whether it was available for delivery in the UK, by the presence or absence of the message “Ships to United Kingdom”.

– the virtual cart, once filled with a product, would continue to display “Deliver to United Kingdom”.

– the Amazon software would fill in the “Review your order” page by adding, among other things, UK shipping address and billing address, UK specific delivery times and prices and the option to pay in sterling.

Comment

The judgment is important because it facilitates the enforcement of trade marks by brand owners and licensees. Although the case did not concern counterfeit goods, surely the outcome would be the same if such goods are marketed and sold on an online marketplace that targets UK consumers

More generally, the judgment is important because it clarifies aspects of the concept of targeting, which is used in several areas of EU private international law and to delineate the territorial scope of EU law. After Brexit, the concept is used in assimilated EU law. But it is also of relevance in other areas of UK law. This is shown, for example, in the Call for Evidence of the Law Commission of England and Wales on Digital Assets and Electronic Trade Documents in Private International Law, which discusses the concept of targeting (that is, “directing” activities) in the context of not only the assimilated Article 6(1)(b) of the Rome I Regulation but also section 15B of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which sets out protective rules of jurisdiction over consumer disputes.

As regards private international law, March 2024 starts at the Court with the delivery of AG N. Emiliou’s opinion on C-774/22, FTI Touristik, on Thursday 7 – an opinion previously scheduled for February.

By its single question, the Amtsgericht Nürnberg (Germany) asks the CJEU whether Article 18(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation determines, not only international judicial jurisdiction, but also internal territorial jurisdiction. In addition, this court questions the foreign element required for the application of the Brussels I bis regulation.

In the dispute in the main proceedings, a consumer filed a claim against FTI, a professional providing tourist services, in relation to a package trip. Both parties to the dispute are domiciled in the same Member State, namely Germany; the only cross-border element is constituted by the destination of the trip outside that Member State. The consumer sued before the court of his domicile. FTI relies on the rules of German territorial jurisdiction to argue lack of jurisdiction, in that these rules designate as territorially competent jurisdiction that of the headquarters of FTI Touristik.

According to the referring court, under national rules it does not have territorial jurisdiction to hear the dispute. Venue could only be deduced from the application of the Brussels I bis Regulation, more specifically its Article 18, paragraph 1. Thus the question:

Is Article 18(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that, in addition to providing for international jurisdiction, the rule also concerns a provision on the territorial jurisdiction of national courts in matters relating to a travel contract where both the consumer, as a traveller, and the other party to the contract, the tour operator[,] have their seat in the same Member State, but the travel destination is situated not in that Member State but abroad (so-called ‘false internal cases’) with the consequence that the consumer can make contractual claims against the tour operator supplementing national provisions on jurisdiction at the court of his or her place of residence?

The case has been allocated to a chamber of five judges (S. Prechal, N. Wahl, J. Passer, L. Arastey Sahún, and F. Biltgen acting as reporting judge).

One week later, on Thursday 14, AG M. Szpunar will communicate his opinion on C-86/23, HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung II. The Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Bulgaria) asks :

Must Article 16 of Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II Regulation) be interpreted as meaning that a rule of national law, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, which provides for the application of a fundamental principle of the law of the Member State, such as the principle of fairness, in the determination of compensation for non-material damage in cases where the death of a close person has occurred as a result of a tort or delict, may be regarded as an overriding mandatory provision within the meaning of that article?

This question is raised in the context of an action for compensation against the insurance company HUK-COBURG, for the moral damage suffered by the parents of the deceased on a traffic accident. The accident took place in Germany; at the time it happened, there was a valid civil liability insurance contract between the driver and the German insurance company HUK-COBURG-Allgemeine Versicherung AG.

The parents of the deceased are Bulgarian nationals permanently resident in Bulgaria. In 2017 they filed claims with the Sofiyski gradski sad (Sofia City Court) against the German insurer for payment of insurance compensation for each parent as compensation for non-material damage suffered as a result of the death of their daughter. The request was declared partially founded at first instance; the appeal court overruled, finding the claimants had not demonstrated that the pain and suffering suffered had caused damage to their health, which, under German law applicable under Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation, would constitute a prerequisite for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court also rejected the argument put forward by the parents according to which Bulgarian law should be applied under Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation.

On cassation, the Varhoven kasatsionen sad (Supreme Court of Cassation), noted that there is contradictory case law from the Bulgarian courts on the question of whether the Bulgarian provision at stake constitutes a mandatory provision derogating within the meaning of Article 16 of the Rome II Regulation, leading, in the main dispute, to the exclusion of German law.

The preliminary reference will be addressed by judges C., Lycourgos,  J.C. Bonichot, S. Rodin, L.S. Rossi, and O. Spineanu-Matei acting as reporting judge.

Next event with interest for PIL readers is the hearing of March 20, regarding case C-227/23, Kwantum Nederland et Kwantum België. The questions by the Hoge Raad der Nederlanden (Netherlands) are:

1. Does the situation at issue in these proceedings fall within the material scope of EU law?

Should the preceding question be answered in the affirmative, the following questions are also submitted:

2. Does the fact that copyright on a work of applied art forms an integral part of the right to protection of intellectual property enshrined in Article 17(2) of the Charter mean that EU law, in particular Article 52(1) of the Charter, in order to limit the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) on a work of applied art by application of the material reciprocity test of Article 2(7) Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works requires this limitation to be provided for by law?

3. Must Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC and Articles 17(2) and 52(1) of the Charter, read in the light of Article 2(7) BC, be interpreted as meaning that it is solely for the EU legislature (and not for national legislatures) to determine whether the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) in the European Union can be limited by application of the material reciprocity test provided for in Article 2(7) BC in respect of a work of applied art whose country of origin within the meaning of the Berne Convention is a third country and whose author is not a national of an EU Member State and, if so, to define that limitation clearly and precisely (see judgment of 8 September 2020, Recorded Artists Actors Performers, C 265/19, EU:C:2020:677)?

4. Must Articles 2, 3 and 4 of Directive 2001/29/EC, read in conjunction with Articles 17(2) and 52(1) of the Charter, be interpreted as meaning that as long as the EU legislature has not provided for a limitation of the exercise of copyright (within the meaning of Directive 2001/29/EC) on a work of applied art by application of the material reciprocity test of Article 2(7) BC, EU Member States may not apply that test in respect of a work of applied art whose country of origin within the meaning of the Berne Convention is a third country and whose author is not a national of an EU Member State?

5. In the circumstances at issue in the present proceedings and given the time of the establishment of (the predecessor of) Article 2(7) BC, are the conditions of the first paragraph of Article 351 TFEU satisfied for Belgium, meaning that Belgium is therefore free to apply the material reciprocity test provided for in Article 2(7) BC, taking into account the fact that in the present case the country of origin acceded to the Berne Convention on 1 May 1989?

The case revolves around the question whether an object of applied art, namely a chair designed in the United States of America, enjoys, in the Netherlands and in Belgium, copyright protection as a “work of applied arts”. The main dispute confronts Vitra, which holds the rights to the chair, and Kwantum, which operates a chain of interior design stores in the Netherlands and Belgium, on the grounds that the latter has marketed a chair which, according to Vitra, would infringe its copyright.

Before the referring court, Kwantum notes that the chair has, in more than 70 years of existence, never benefited from copyright protection in its country of origin – the United States of America. She argues in particular that Vitra cannot invoke such protection in Belgium and the Netherlands, having regard to the criterion of material reciprocity contained in Article 2(7) of the Berne Convention, which constitutes an exception to the principle of national treatment provided for in Article 5, paragraph 1, of this convention.

The deciding judges will be A. Arabadjiev, T. von Danwitz, P.G. Xuereb, A. Kumin, plus I. Ziemele as reporting judge. AG M. Szpunar will announce the date of delivery of the opinion at the end of the hearing.

Finally, on March 21, the same chamber, this time with A. Kumin reporting, will publish the decision in C-90/22, Gjensidige. I reported briefly on facts and questions here. AG N. Emiliou’s opinion was published on December 14, 2024. The Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania) asks:

1. Can Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012 [the Brussels I bis Regulation], having regard to Articles 25, 29 and 31 and recitals 21 and 22 thereof, be interpreted as permitting the application of Article 31 of [the CMR] also in cases where a dispute falling within the scope of both those legal instruments is the subject of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?

2. Having regard to the legislature’s intention to strengthen the protection of agreements conferring jurisdiction in the European Union, can Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted more broadly, as covering not only Section 6 of Chapter II of that regulation but also Section 7 thereof?

3. After assessment of the specific features of the situation and the resulting legal consequences, can the term “public policy” used in [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as covering the ground for deciding not to recognise a judgment of another Member State where the application of a specialised convention, such as [the CMR], creates a legal situation in which both the agreement conferring jurisdiction and the agreement on the applicable law are not observed in the same case?

AG Emiliou did not consider it necessary to answer to the first question in light of what he deemed the correct answer to the following ones. He proposes the Court to interpret Article 45(1)(a) and (e)(ii) of the Brussels I bis regulation as meaning:

that the grounds for the refusal of recognition set out therein do not apply to a situation in which the court of origin established its jurisdiction on the basis of one of several rules contained in a specialised convention, within the meaning of Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012, which include – but do not classify as exclusive – a choice-of-court agreement, and when the court of origin was not the court designated by the choice-of-court agreement concluded by the parties concerned.

And also

as meaning that an error, when established, as to the determination of the applicable law cannot, per se, lead to the recognition of a judgment being refused on the ground that it is contrary to the public policy of the State addressed.

This is the first contribution to the EAPIL’s Online Symposium on Inkreal. It is authored by Sergi Gimenez, who is an Associate Lecturer of Private International Law at the Universitat Pompeu Fabra in Barcelona and a partner in the law firm Augusta Abogados. The other contributions can be found here: Gilles Cuniberti, Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Dominique Bureau and Horatia Muir Watt. 

---

In its judgment of 8 February 2024 in Inkreal (Case C-566/22), the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”) has concluded that there is no impediment for parties to a contract established in the same EU Member State (e.g. Spain) to agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State (e.g. Germany) to settle their contractual disputes, even if the contract in question has no other connection with the designated Member State. The doctrine established by the CJEU, perhaps questionable in some respects, opens up interesting prospects for companies to choose the dispute resolution mechanism that suits them best, even in purely domestic contractual relations.

Background

Between June 2016 and March 2017, an individual (“FD”) residing in Slovakia lent money to the Slovak company Dúha reality s.r.o. (“Dúha”). The two loan agreements signed between the parties contained a clause whereby the parties agreed that any disputes arising from the loans would be settled “by a court of the Czech Republic having substantive and territorial jurisdiction”.

In early December 2021 FD transferred the claims under the loan agreements in favour of Inkreal s.r.o. (“Inkreal”), a company also incorporated under Slovak law and established in Slovakia.

Since Dúha did not repay the loans, Inkreal sued Dúha before the Supreme Civil and Criminal Court of the Czech Republic at the end of the same month of December, as foreseen in the above mentioned clause.

Doubts then arose as to the possible invalidity of the above-mentioned attribution agreement. Since the dispute concerned a contract governed by Slovak law and was between two Slovak companies, with no connection to the Czech Republic, the Court questioned its possible lack of international jurisdiction. In view of the doubts that arose, the Czech Supreme Court turned to the CJEU for clarification.

The Question

The Czech Supreme Court’s doubts arose from the fact that neither the loan agreements nor the disputing parties have any connection with the Czech Republic. However, the case-law of the CJEU has consistently required that there be an “international element” in the disputes in order for the Brussels I bis Regulation to apply. Thus, the referring court wondered whether the mere will of the parties, by including a clause submitting to the courts of another State, was sufficient to confer an international character on their contractual relationship. If that is not the case, the situation would be purely internal and the EU regulation would not be applicable. In such a case, the possible jurisdiction or lack of jurisdiction of the Czech courts would have to be examined in the light of the internal rules of the Czech Republic itself.

Judgment

In addition to hearing the arguments submitted by the parties involved and analysing the Opinion of the Advocate General (who expressed a view contrary to that reflected in the judgment), the CJEU also took into account the observations submitted by the European Commission and some States that wished to participate. The CJEU concluded that a jurisdiction agreement by which the parties to a contract established in the same Member State agree that the courts of another Member State shall have jurisdiction to hear disputes arising out of that contract falls within the scope of Article 25(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation even if that contract has no connection with that other Member State.

Reasoning of the CJEU

The CJEU reaches the above conclusion using reasoning that is questionable in some cases but imbued with an undoubtedly practical sense. Although the CJEU insists on its settled case law to the effect that the application of the jurisdiction rules of the Brussels I bis Regulation requires the existence of an “international element”, the truth is that the final decision greatly relativises this requirement.

According to the CJEU, the dispute between Inkreal and Dúha falls within the definition of the concept of a “cross-border case” since the parties are established in a Member State other than that to which the Czech court seised on the basis of the agreement conferring jurisdiction in question belongs (para 23). The CJEU adds that the fact that the main dispute raises a question concerning the determination of international jurisdiction (that of the Czech Supreme Court) reinforces the idea of the existence of a cross-border element (Recital 24).

Paragraph 25 of the judgment contains the key to the CJEU’s decision in determining that

the existence of an agreement conferring jurisdiction on the courts of a Member State other than that in which the parties are established in itself demonstrates the cross-border implications of the dispute in the main proceedings.

In this way, the CJEU opens the way for the parties to a contract to decide, solely by their own free will, to “internationalise” a situation that from any other point of view would be considered purely internal.

To justify its view, the CJEU relies on eminently practical reasons: maintaining that the clause on submission to foreign courts is covered by the Brussels I bis  Regulation allows the plaintiff and the defendant to easily determine the court before which they can sue and be sued, and it also allows the court seised to easily rule on its own jurisdiction. According to the CJEU, the alternative of the court having jurisdiction being determined in accordance with the national rules of private international law of the Member States concerned would lead to greater legal uncertainty, since the application of different national rules could lead to divergent solutions.

Commentary and Possible Implications

Until now, in contractual matters, individuals could “internationalise” a domestic situation with regard to the law applicable to their contract. Indeed, Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 (Rome I ) gives a wide freedom of choice of the law applicable to contracts by stating that “the contract shall be governed by the law chosen by the parties“. Thus, in principle, even the parties to a purely domestic contract can choose a foreign law. Notwithstanding this freedom of choice of law, Article 3(3) of the same Rome I Regulation provides for a corrective mechanism to prevent possible abuses or excessively opportunistic choices: if all the relevant elements of the contract (e.g. the place of establishment of the parties, the place of performance of the services or delivery of the goods, etc.) are located in a country other than the country whose law is chosen, the mandatory rules of the first country will continue to apply. Thus, in purely domestic contracts the foreign law chosen by the parties will only apply in those respects in which the law to which the contract is objectively linked does not contain mandatory rules. Article 3(4) of the Rome I Regulation provides for an identical limitation for purely intra-EU cases: if all the elements of the situation are located in two or more EU Member States and the parties choose the law of a third State, such a choice does not prejudice the application of mandatory rules of Community law.

The restrictions provided for in the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to the contract are not transferable to forum selection clauses. In fact, in its decision, the CJEU has not imposed any kind of limitation on the choice of the courts of another Member State (beyond the restrictions on exclusive and protective forums or those relating to public policy provided for in Article 45). Thus, two or more companies located in the same Member State and concluding a purely internal contract can now decide that any disputes between them will be settled by the courts of a different Member State. And it should be remembered that, by submitting a case to the courts of another Member State, the latter acquire exclusive jurisdiction to hear the case, unless the parties have agreed otherwise.

Until now, in order to transfer a purely domestic dispute to another State, the parties had the mechanism of arbitration at their disposal, agreeing that the seat of the arbitration tribunal would be in another country. With the new doctrine set by the CJEU, the parties may also opt for the ordinary courts of another EU Member State if they consider it appropriate, whether for reasons of speed, efficiency, cost, specialisation or any other reason. Obviously, before making a decision, other aspects must be taken into account, including possible adverse elements such as language difficulties, the added complexity involved in making notifications or taking evidence abroad or even the problems arising from the need to prove to the foreign judge the content of the substantive rules chosen by the parties if these rules are not those of the designated judge.

By a decision of 21 December 2023, the Danish Supreme Court held that a Swedish default judgment concerning a loan agreement could not be enforced in Denmark on the ground that the service procedure that preceded the judgment was inadequate in an international situation.

Background

In 2014, a Swedish bank filed a plaint in a Swedish court to sue a debtor for not fulfilling a loan agreement. As the defendant did not appear after the court had fulfilled the Swedish standards for service of documents, a default judgment was rendered. In 2022, the bank asked the Swedish court for a certificate under Article 53 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. With that certificate, the bank sought enforcement of the Swedish default judgment in a Danish court. Both the Danish court of first instance and the Danish court of appeal held that the Swedish judgment was enforceable in Denmark under the Brussels I bis Regulation. However, the Danish Supreme Court came to a different conclusion.

Decision

First, the Danish Supreme Court found that the lower instances’ application of the Brussels I bis Regulation was wrong as the Swedish proceedings had been initiated before 15 January 2015. Under Article 66 para. 1 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, it is the older Brussels I Regulation that applies for matters initiated before that date. Here, it can be noted that both regulations are applicable in Denmark despite Denmark’s special status in EU’s civil law cooperation due to a parallel agreement between the EU and Denmark.

The exceptions to the rule on presumption for enforcement of judgments from other member states in Article 45 follow from Articles 4 and 35 in the Brussels I Regulation. Article 34 para. states that it is a ground for refusal that a default judgment has been rendered without the defendant having been duly served. With reference to the CJEU’s judgments C-327/10, Hypoteční banka, EU:C:2011:745, and C-292/10, Cornelius de Visser, EU:C:2012:142, the Danish Supreme Court held that the Brussels I Regulation requires a court to investigate the domicile of the defendant to fulfil its service obligations. Though the domicile of the defendant was unknown to the Swedish court, it was clear to that court that the defendant was a Danish citizen. Nonetheless, the Swedish court made no investigations into whether the defendant was domiciled there. Consequently, the Danish Supreme Court held that the Swedish default judgment may not be enforced in Denmark.

Comment

The Danish Supreme Court decision is a good example of the practical application of the “principles of diligence and good faith” that the CJEU set as a standard for the investigations that a court must perform to trace a defendant. To investigate whether a defendant has regained domicile in a country where he or she is a citizen or to which he or she has a strong connection is probably an absolute minimum requirement.

Even if the presumption for recognition and enforcement has been changed between the old Brussels I Regulation and the Brussels I bis Regulation, it is noteworthy that the same ground for recognition exists also in Article 45 (1)(b) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

Litigating in England is expensive. That is why the number of international family law cases is relatively small in this country. However, when an international family law dispute does end up before an English court, it tends to involve very wealthy individuals and can be quite spectacular. One such case is Potanina v Potanin, which concerns a maintenance claim brought by Natalia Potanina against her ex-husband, Vladimir Potanin, “Russia’s richest man” according to Bloomberg.

On 31 January 2024, the UK Supreme Court (Lord Leggatt, Lord Lloyd-Jones and Lady Rose; Lord Briggs and Lord Stephens dissenting) gave a judgment in this case, essentially removing an obscure procedure that had previously precluded respondents from properly arguing their case at the initial stage of deciding whether the applicant should be permitted to make an application for financial relief.

Facts

The parties were born in Russia and are both Russian citizens. They married in Russia in 1983 and lived there throughout their marriage. In the 1990s, the husband accumulated vast wealth, estimated to amount to USD20 billion, primarily comprising an ultimate beneficial interest in the shares of a Russian metal and mining company. The parties divorced in 2014, prompting extensive litigation in Russia, the USA and Cyprus, in which the wife unsuccessfully sought to obtain half of the assets beneficially owned by the husband. Following the divorce, the wife relocated to London, becoming habitually resident in England in 2017. In 2018, she applied for permission to seek maintenance.

Legal Framework

Part III of the Matrimonial and Family Proceedings Act 1984 gives English courts the power to order financial relief after an overseas divorce. The court has jurisdiction to do so if either party was habitually resident in England throughout the period of one year before the commencement of proceedings or before the overseas divorce. Before making an order for financial relief, the court must consider whether it would be appropriate for an English court to do so, taking account various factors such as the parties’ connections with England, the country in which they were divorced and any other country. If the court is satisfied that it would be appropriate for it to make an order for financial relief, it has the power to make any order it could make in cases of divorce in England. Section 13 of the Act protects respondents by providing that no application under Part III may be made without the court’s permission, obtained in accordance with rules of court. The court may only grant permission if it considers that there is a “substantial ground” for making an application for financial relief.

Issue

The judge initially granted permission at a without notice (previously called ex parte) hearing. However, the judge subsequently allowed the husband’s application to set aside the order granting permission on the basis that he had been materially misled. The Court of Appeal allowed the wife’s appeal adopting a strict test for when the power to set aside an order granting permission could be exercised: there had to be some “compelling reason” to do so and in practice only where a decisive authority had been overlooked or the court had been misled; furthermore, it had to be be possible to demonstrate such a compelling reason by a “knockout blow”. This test was derived from Lord Collins’s obiter dictum at [33] of Agbaje v Agbaje.

Judgment

The Supreme Court held that “If this is indeed how the law presently stands, then I would feel bound to say that, in the eloquent words of Mr Bumble, “the law is an ass.” [30].

This is because the test for when the power to set aside an order granting permission could be exercised violated fundamental principles of procedural fairness. If the husband could not demonstrate by a “knockout blow” that the judge had been misled at the initial without notice hearing, the judge was not entitled to hear any argument from the husband regarding whether the test for granting permission under Section 13 was met or to set aside the permission granted after the without notice hearing. In Potanina, this led to what the court described as a “dystopian” [5], “patently unfair” [31] and “foolish” [32] result that the judge’s initial order granting permission was restored, despite the judge’s later conclusion, after hearing argument from both parties, that the test for granting permission had not been met.

The Supreme Court clarified that there was no requirement to demonstrate a “compelling reason” or that the court had been misled or to deliver a “knockout blow”.

The correct position is that if a court makes an order granting permission under Section 13 after a without notice hearing, the respondent has an absolute unfettered right to apply to set aside the order. At the hearing of such an application, the burden still lies on the applicant to demonstrate a “substantial ground” for making the application for financial relief in England. In this context, the word “substantial” means “solid”.

Because of its conclusion that the judge had not been entitled to reconsider his initial decision, the Court of Appeal failed to address certain grounds of appeal raised by the wife, including the question of applicability and effect of the Maintenance Regulation No 4/2009. As a result, the case was remitted to the Court of Appeal.

Comment

Wealthy individuals like Mrs Potanina bring maintenance claims in England because English courts may be more inclined than those of other countries to equally divide the assets, including those beneficially owned by the spouses. Before the Supreme Court judgment, obtaining permission to seek financial relief was relatively easy, as the initial order granting permission was typically granted without notice and the strict test for setting it aside was usually not met. However, the Supreme Court has now decided that this test was wrong in law. The court addressed a procedural issue, not the merits of the claim, in its judgment. While the judgment cannot put an end to “divorce tourism” in England on its own, it will lead to future cases facing greater scrutiny, allowing respondents to properly argue their case at the initial stage of deciding whether the applicant should be permitted to make an application for financial relief.

On 19 January 2024, the High Court of England and Wales (Dias J) gave a judgment in Border Timbers Ltd v Zimbabwe, which concerned an application to set aside an order granting registration of an ICSID award. The court dismissed the application while holding that the execution of the award was precluded by state immunity.

To reach this conclusion, the court dealt with interesting questions of private international law and international arbitration, namely the distinction between recognition, enforcement and execution of awards and the application of state immunity to the execution of ICSID awards.

Facts

Zimbabwe lost an ICSID arbitration (Border Timbers Limited, Timber Products International (Private) Limited, and Hangani Development Co (Private) Limited v Republic of Zimbabwe (ICSID Case No. ARB/10/25)). The award was not satisfied. The award-creditor successfully applied for registration and entry of judgment on the award in England pursuant to the Arbitration (International Investment Disputes) Act 1966 (“1966 Act”) and section 62.21 of the Civil Procedure Rules. The award-debtor applied to set aside the registration of the award on the basis that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the UK courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 (“1978 Act”).

Legal Framework

Articles 53-55 of the ICSID Convention deal with the recognition and enforcement of ICSID awards in the Contracting States. The first sentence of Article 54(1) states that “Each Contracting State shall recognize an award rendered pursuant to this Convention as binding and enforce the pecuniary obligations imposed by that award within its territories as if it were a final judgment of a court in that State.” Article 54(3) specifies that the execution of ICSID awards is governed by the laws concerning the execution of judgments of the requested state. Article 55 preserves the application of the requested state’s law of state immunity from execution.

The 1966 Act implements the ICSID Convention in UK law. Section 1 of the Act provides for the registration of ICSID awards. Section 2(1) of the Act specifies that the effects of registration are that a registered award “shall, as respects the pecuniary obligations which it imposes, be of the same force and effect for the purposes of execution as if it had been a judgment of the High Court”. The Act does not address foreign states’ immunity from execution.

The 1978 Act provides for general immunity from jurisdiction except insofar as one of the stipulated exceptions can be established. The award-creditor argued that the exceptions in sections 2 (“submission to jurisdiction”) and 9 (“arbitrations”) of the Act applied. Section 2 specifies that a state is not immune as respects proceedings in respect of which it has submitted to the jurisdiction of the UK courts. Section 9 states that where a state has entered into a written arbitration agreement, it is not immune as respects proceedings in the UK courts which relate to the arbitration, subject to any contrary provision in the arbitration agreement.

Judgment

The court held that Articles 53-55 of the ICSID Convention stipulated that every Contracting State undertook to recognise an ICSID award as binding for the purposes of res judicata and to enforce any pecuniary obligations it imposed by giving it the same status as a final judgment of its own courts. The requested court cannot re-examine the award on its merits or refuse recognition or enforcement on grounds of public policy. Questions of execution were left to national courts and laws. In particular, Article 54(1) amounted to a waiver of state immunity in respect of recognition and enforcement, but not in relation to processes of execution against assets.

The exception to state immunity in section 2 of the 1978 Act was drafted with reference to specific proceedings before a specific court, thus requiring any submission to be in respect of the jurisdiction actually being exercised in those proceedings. A waiver of immunity unrelated to any identifiable proceedings was therefore not synonymous with a submission to the jurisdiction under section 2. Article 54 of the ICSID Convention was not a sufficiently clear and unequivocal submission to the jurisdiction of the English courts for the purposes of recognising and enforcing the award against the award-debtor. The award-debtor, therefore, had not submitted to the jurisdiction of the English courts within the meaning of section 2 for the purposes of obtaining recognition and enforcement of the award.

Unfortunately, the court’s discussion of the exception to state immunity in section 9 of the 1978 Act is somewhat unclear. After finding that section 9 required or permitted the English courts to re-examine the jurisdiction of the tribunal (whether an ICSID or non-ICSID tribunal) and that ICSID awards did not fall to be treated differently from other awards in this respect, the court concluded, at [89], that:

The position under section 9 is therefore different from that which pertains under section 2 in relation to Article 54. The enquiry which the court has to conduct under section 2 is whether there was a submission to the jurisdiction. On my analysis, the existence of a valid award is a given in that context, and the only question is whether it was rendered pursuant to Convention procedures. Questions of jurisdiction simply do not arise.

Therefore, according to the court, the award-creditor did not establish the applicability of the section 9 exception.

The remaining question was whether state immunity was engaged at all in relation to an application for registration of an ICSID award. The court held that the procedure for registration of ICSID awards set out in section 62.21 of the Civil Procedure Rules did not require service of any originating process or involved any exercise of discretion or adjudication. This was because the award-creditor had a statutory entitlement to have the award registered, subject only to proof of authenticity and other evidential requirements. The foreign state was not impleaded unless and until the order granting registration was served on it. The doctrine of state immunity had no application at the anterior stage of registration. It was the service of process on a state that involved an exercise of sovereignty. This contrasted with the mere notification of the application for registration. The opportunity of a state to assert immunity before any attempt was made to execute against its assets was adequately secured by requiring service of the order for registration. Consequently, the award-debtor could not apply to set aside the registration of the award on the basis that it was immune from the jurisdiction of the UK courts. However, it could claim immunity in relation to any further steps towards execution.

Interestingly, the court further stated that this approach enabled a principled distinction to be drawn between applications to enforce ICSID awards, which were not served and where the award could not be reviewed, and applications to enforce awards under the New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards 1958. The NYC potentially required service and expressly required the court to exercise its adjudicative jurisdiction in determining that no defences applied.

Comment

The judgment is of interest for private international law for three reasons. First, it illustrates, in very clear terms, the difference between recognition, enforcement and execution of an award. Second, it confirms the conceptual distinction between a general waiver of immunity and a submission to jurisdiction. Third, it clarifies the ministerial (and not adjudicative) nature of the act that the court is asked to perform on an application for registration of an ICSID award.

However, the reasoning of the court is not entirely satisfactory. After repeatedly reading paragraph 89 of the judgment, I still do not understand why the court concluded that the award-creditor did not establish the applicability of the section 9 exception. A more persuasive line of reasoning would have been to point out that the award-debtor’s offer of ICSID arbitration, as contained in Article 10(2) of the Switzerland-Zimbabwe BIT, incorporated the ICSID Convention, including Article 55, which provides that questions of execution are left to national courts and laws – this could have amounted to a “contrary provision in the arbitration agreement” within the meaning of section 9(2) of the 1978 Act.

Many Member States try to limit gambling through strict prohibitions, with the sole exception for governmental monopolies. Malta, however, has a burgeoning online gambling industry with pan-European reach, which it deems to be protected by the freedom of services enshrined in primary EU law. The island state resists the enforcement of judgments from courts in other Member States that take a different view; to this end, it even plans to adopt an explicit legislative provision prohibiting the enforcement of such judgments by Maltese courts (see here). [image by frepik]

The Recent Episodes in Austria

Meanwhile, gamblers in Austria who have lost money have found a lucrative alternative. Instead of bringing their claims themselves, they sell and assign them to a Swiss company, which then tries to enforce these claims before Austrian courts. This raises the question of the latter’s international jurisdiction. In a number of decisions, the Austrian Supreme Court (OGH) has answered it in the affirmative (22 June 2023, 27 June 2023, and 25 September 2023). The reasoning of those judgments is of general interest. Not only does the court address various aspects of the case law of the CJEU in the area of international civil procedure law in recent years, but it also adds a further wrinkle to the complex discussion on the localisation of financial loss under Article 7 No 2 Brussels I bis Regulation (see already here and here).

Consumer Protection is Out

To the uninitiated, Article 18 Brussels I bis seems to provide a basis of jurisdiction for the gamblers’ claims. Yet in the eyes of the Austrian Supreme Court, this provision is inapplicable because the plaintiff is not asserting his own claims but assigned ones. This is in line with the case law of the CJEU, who excluded assigned claims from the scope of the consumer protection provisions (see Schrems, C-498/16, paras 42–49).

Choice of Forum

Another potential stumbling block could be a jurisdiction agreement contained in the contracts between the gamblers and the operator. According to it, all disputes should be decided by the courts of Malta. Yet the Austrian Supreme Court rightly denies any effects of this clause against the Swiss litigation vehicle. As the CJEU had ruled in DelayFix (C-519/19, para 42), such a clause produces effects only between the parties to the initial agreement.

Where Are Gambling Contracts Performed?

We are getting closer to the meat of the case, which is Article 7 Brussels I bis. First, the contractual head of jurisdiction under Article 7 No 1 Brussels I bis was analysed by the Austrian Supreme Court. Undoubtedly, the parties had entered into a contract, more precisely a service contract in the (European-autonomous) sense of lit b. But where was the service to be performed?

The Austrian Supreme Court, in line with the case law of the CJEU (see Wood Floor Solutions, C-19/09, para 42), locates the place of performance within the meaning of Article 7 No 1 lit b Brussels I bis in the state of the service provider, i.e. in Malta. The courts there would also have jurisdiction to hear claims for the restitution of money paid under the gambling contracts. Hence, this head of jurisdiction does not allow bringing a claim in Austria.

Where does Harm from Gambling Occur?

We have arrived at the last and thorniest question, the tort/delict jurisdiction under Article 7 No 2 Brussels I bis.

In confronting the choice between the place where the damage was caused and the place where the damage occurred, the decisions by the Austrian Supreme Court tend to focus on the latter. They strive to assess the place of damage in line with the CJEU’s decision in Kolassa (C-375/13) and in VEB v BP (C-709/19). In this context, they consider a gaming account opened by the gamblers in Malta to be irrelevant for determining international jurisdiction. Instead, they emphasise that an additional element is required to consider the gambler’s domicile as the place where the damage occurred.

At this point, there is a veritable novelty in the present decisions compared to the previous case law of the CJEU. The Austrian Supreme Court adds a wholly new element to the localisation of damage by referring to the violation of the Austrian gambling laws. The decision of 22 June 2023 creates this nexus in the following way:

Above all, however, the damage materialised in Austria because the damage asserted results from alleged violations of Austrian gambling law by the defendant and therefore from violations of Austrian public policy rules.

The decision of 25 September 2023 does not even attempt a classic localisation approach at all, but puts the violation of public law front and centre of its reasoning:

The breach of duty relevant to the damage is located in Austria, which is why the international jurisdiction of the court of first instance for the tortious claims for damages asserted is to be affirmed pursuant to Art 7 No 2 Brussels I bis Regulation.

Assessment

The quoted passages merit criticism. They tend to blur the line between the place of the tortious conduct and the place of the damage occurred.

The conduct in this case clearly took place in Malta, the only place where the defendant company acted. The offering of their services in Austria may have breached Austrian law, even public policy rules. Yet this does not change the fact that all actions giving rise to the damage took place in Malta. This is where the website was operated and therefore where the conduct causing the harmful event occurred.

Also the damage itself does not lie in the violation of Austrian rules. The two are not the same, but must be distinguished. The Austrian Supreme Court may have been led astray by some utterances of the CJEU in the VEB decision, which referred, in determining the place of damage, to the place where a securities issuer company had to comply with statutory reporting obligations (VEB v BP, C-709/19, para 359). However, this was done to ensure the foreseeability of the competent court, not to locate the damage itself.

As a result, the violation of a state’s public policy provisions alone does not allow its courts to exercise jurisdiction. By focusing on the – potential – violation of the Austrian gambling law, the Austrian Supreme Court abandons the attempt to physically localise the damage. Yet the harm under Article 7 No 2 Brussels I bis must still be determined by a localisation exercise.

— Thanks to Paul Eichmüller, Felix Krysa and Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld for critically reviewing this post.

This blogpost is written by Stichting IJI (The Hague Institute for private international law and foreign law)

---

On 13 June 2023 the Amsterdam Court of Appeal addressed the scope of Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (hereinafter: Regulation 2016/1103) (ECLI:NL:GHAMS:2023:1358).

The court had to rule on the matter of jurisdiction regarding the division of real estate located in New Zealand between parties who had agreed upon the exclusion of marital property. In this post, we will discuss the court’s assessment of the substantive scope of Regulation 2016/1103 with regard to the jurisdiction of the Dutch court.

Regulation 2016/1103: Overview

Regulation 2016/1103 entered into application on 29 January 2019 following the objective of certain Member States to establish a more enhanced cooperation between themselves aimed at adopting common rules on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions with regard to property regimes of international couples, covering both marriages and registered partnerships.

The Regulation has been adopted under the special regime of enhanced cooperation, as provided for by Article 20 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) and Articles 326 to 334 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The territorial scope of the Regulation is therefore limitedly binding for the Member States participating in this cooperation.

According to Article 69 of Regulation 2016/1103 the regulation applies only to legal proceedings instituted, to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered and to court settlements approved or concluded on or after 29 January 2019.

Its substantive scope should include all civil-law aspects of matrimonial property regimes, both the daily management of matrimonial property and the liquidation of the regime, in particular as a result of the couple’s separation or the death of one of the spouses. For the purposes of the Regulation, the term ‘matrimonial property regime’ should be interpreted autonomously and should encompass not only rules from which the spouses may not derogate but also any optional rules to which the spouses may agree in accordance with the applicable law, as well as any default rules of the applicable law. It includes not only property arrangements specifically and exclusively envisaged by certain national legal systems in the case of marriage but also any property relationships, between the spouses and in their relations with third parties, resulting directly from the matrimonial relationship, or the dissolution thereof (Recital 18).

The Facts

The parties involved in this case got married in New Zealand in 1993. At that time, both parties had the Dutch nationality. Additionally, the woman had also the New Zealand citizenship. The parties lived in New Zealand and three children were born during their marriage.

Before marriage, the parties drew up prenuptial agreements in the Netherlands. The parties chose to apply Dutch law to their marital property and, regarding their marital property regime, decided on the exclusion of community of property in accordance with Dutch law.

On 31 March 1999 the man purchased a house in New Zealand. The parties lived in this accommodation from 2000 to 2008 with their three children. In 2007 the man paid off his mortgage on this property. Before relocating to the Netherlands, the parties drew up a ‘property agreement’ with regards to the house, stating that the parties were now co-owners of the property. This was necessary as the applicable Dutch marital property regime of the exclusion of community of property would not result in co-ownership over the property. In the property agreement the parties agreed on the following:

(…)

BACKGROUND

(…)

1. 1976. The parties wish to record their agreement as to the ownership of the home pursuant to Section 21(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.

AGREEMENT TERMS

1. 1. The husband declares that the home is relationship property.
   2. As from the date of this agreement the husband and the wife shall own the home as joint tenants and the husband declares that he now holds ownership of the home, as registered proprietor, as trustee for the husband and the wife accordingly.
   3. (…)
   4. Ownership of the home, and any transfer, is subject to all existing registered encumbrances, but the mortgage to the ASB Bank is to be discharged, as it has been repaid in full.
   5. This agreement is made pursuant to Section 21(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and is specific to the home and is not attempting to determine ownership of any other property (separate or relationship) which may also be owned by the husband and/or the wife, nor does it otherwise effect the pre-nuptial agreement signed by the parties prior to their marriage.
   6. This agreement is binding on the parties in all circumstances including (…) dissolution of marriage (…).
   7. Each party:

(a) (…)

(b) acknowledges that before signing this agreement he or she has had independent legal advice as to the nature, effect and implications of this agreement.

(…)

The parties eventually got divorced on 18 November 2019 in the Netherlands.

First Instance Judgment

As an ancillary provision to the divorce petition the man requested the Amsterdam District Court to divide the property in New Zealand and to grant him compensation for his private investments in this property. The court retained itself competent to decide on this request based on Article 6 of Regulation 2016/1103. The court recognized the co-ownership of the property and applied Dutch law to the division of the property in line with the choice of law in the prenuptial agreement of the parties.

The court then ordered the sale of the property and ordered the woman to cooperate with that sale. If the woman would not cooperate, the court granted the man the power to act solely with regards to the sale of the property. In addition, the court ruled that both parties would share the revenue and would be held responsible for the costs regarding the sale. The woman appealed the court’s decision on the matter of the court’s competence and the applicable law to the division of the house.

Appeal Request

According to the woman, the Dutch court should have never considered itself competent under Article 6 (a) of Regulation 2016/1103 because that Regulation did not apply to the matter at hand. Accordingly, the Amsterdam District Court could not establish its jurisdiction based on the application of the Regulation.

According to the woman the parties shared no marital property in light of their prenuptial agreement. Therefore, the request regarding the division of the property could not fall within the scope of Articles 1 and 3 of Regulation 2016/1103. Instead, the woman argued that any community of property should be dissolved under “common” property law specifically related to proprietary rights and interests, since the marital property regime stipulated the full exclusion of community of property.

Court of Appeal Judgment

The Amsterdam Court of Appeal stated that with regard to legal claims in the field of international matrimonial property law that are brought on or after 29 January 2019, the Dutch court shall establish its jurisdiction on the basis of Articles 4 to 19 of Regulation 2016/1103. This applies even if the claim relates to a marriage that was concluded prior to this date. Materially, Regulation 2016/1103 covers “matrimonial property regimes” (Article 1(1) of Regulation 2016/1103). This includes all property relationships which, as a result of the marriage or its dissolution, exist between the spouses or in relation to third parties (Article 3 (1) (a) of the Regulation). The Court of Appeal then explained then the scope of the Regulation with regards to the property agreement at hand, as follows:

The parties entered into the Property Agreement in 2008. With this agreement the parties became co-owners of the property in New Zealand. Under subsection D of the Property Agreement, the parties recorded that they entered into the agreement “pursuant to Section 21(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976.” It is further recorded under Section 5 of the Property Agreement that “This agreement is made pursuant to Section 21(2) of the Property (Relationships) Act 1976 and is specific to the home and is not attempting to determine ownership of any other property (separate or relationship) (…) nor does it otherwise effect the pre-nuptial agreement signed by the parties prior to their marriage.”

The Court of Appeal considered that the property agreement refers explicitly to the Property (Relationships) Act 1976. The Property (Relationships) Act 1976 pertains to the division of property of married couples (or cohabitating couples) in the event of divorce or death in New Zealand. In addition, the parties signed the property agreement as “husband” and “wife”. Thus, with the referral to the Act and the signing of the agreement in their official capacity as husband and wife, the parties had chosen to establish proprietary consequences through their marital status. With that in mind, the Court of Appeal established that the request for the division of the property in New Zealand falls within the scope of Regulation 2016/1103. Then, the Court of Appeal concluded that since the spouses were habitually resident in the Netherlands at the time the case was brought before the first instance court, the Dutch court had jurisdiction pursuant to Article 6 (a) of the Regulation. The fact that the property is established in New Zealand does not alter the foregoing.

Conclusion

This decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal clarifies the broad scope of Article 1 in relation with Article 3 of the Regulation 2016/1103 and Recital 18 of the preamble. Art 1(1) provides that this Regulation applies to matrimonial property regimes. This Article should be read in conjunction with Article 3(1)(a), which defines the notion of ‘matrimonial property regime’ as ‘a set of rules concerning the property relationships between the spouses and in their relations with third parties, as a result of marriage or its dissolution.’  The Court of Appeal explains in its decision that the Regulation 2016/1103 may apply even in cases where the marital property regime includes an exclusion of community of property. The exclusion of community of property might entail that an issue relating to assets of the spouses does not fall within the material scope of the Regulation. After all, it can be argued that there is no connection with the marriage of the persons concerned. However, if the spouses made an agreement with respect to a certain asset and opt for a property relationship as a result of – or in connection with – their marriage, the provisions of Regulation 2016/1103 may be applied for the division of such property.

As the Regulation is still quite young, it will be interesting to monitor rulings on similar subjects from the courts of the participating countries.

The external activity of the Court of Justice resumes on 8 January 2024. On 11 January, Advocate General M. Szpunar will publish his opinion on C-632/22 (Assignation au siège d’une filiale de la défenderesse). I reported on the case on the occasion of the hearing, which took place last October. The Spanish Supreme Court has sent to Luxembourg these two questions in relation to service of process and the right to a due process in a competition case involving companies with seat in different Member States.

1. In the circumstances surrounding the litigation relating to the trucks cartel, described in this order, is it possible to interpret Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in such a way that service of process on a parent company against which an action for damages for the harm caused by a restrictive trade practice has been brought is considered to have been properly effected when such service was effected (or attempted) at the place of business of the subsidiary company established in the State in which the legal proceedings were brought, while the parent company, which is established in another Member State, has not entered an appearance in the proceedings and has remained in default?
2. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is that interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter compatible with Article 53 of the Charter, in the light of the case-law of the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on the service of process on parent companies established in another Member State in disputes relating to the trucks cartel?

A hearing on case C-187/23 Albausy, will take place at the very end of the month, on Wednesday 31. Faced with an application to grant a European certificate of succession by a (presumptive) heir, with other (equally presumptive) beneficiaries to the estate contesting the will, the Amstgericht Lörrach (Germany) asks several questions on Article 67 of the Succession Regulation (Regulation 650/2012):

(a)     Must point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of the Succession Regulation be interpreted as meaning that it also refers to challenges raised in the procedure for issuing the European Certificate of Succession itself, which the court is not permitted to examine, and that it does not refer only to challenges raised in other proceedings?

(b)     If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative: Must point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of the Succession Regulation be interpreted as meaning that a European Certificate of Succession may not be issued even if challenges have been raised in the procedure for issuing the European Certificate of Succession, but they have already been examined in the proceedings for the issuance of a certificate of inheritance under German law?

(c)     If the answer to Question (a) is in the affirmative: Must point (a) of the second subparagraph of Article 67(1) of the Succession Regulation be interpreted as covering any challenges, even if they have not been substantiated and no formal evidence is to be taken of that fact?

(d)         If the answer to Question (a) is in the negative: In what form must the court state the reasons that led it to reject the challenges and to issue the European Certificate of Succession?

At the time of registration, the second question seemed hypothetical as no other proceedings for the issuance of a national certificate were pending, nor is it for sure that the objections raised against the European certificate would be examined there. Further doubts on admissibility will certainly be discussed at the hearing. Should the Court of Justice answer on the merits, other provisions of the Succession regulation (i.e., not only its Article 67) will likely be interpreted as well for the Court to provide useful guidance to the national jurisdiction.

C-187/23 has been allocated to a chamber of five judges (E. Regan, Z. Csehi, M. Ilesic, I. Jarukauti, D. Gratsias). M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona will provide an opinion in due time.

No other requests directly concerning private international law are scheduled to be dealt with in January.

On a wider perspective, I would like to mention case C-4/23, Mirin. This Grand Chamber case, with judge M. Ilesic reporting and an opinion by J. Richard de la Tour, has been prompted by a change of gender (from female to male), followed by the change of the name and a number of documents, of a British national who had actually been born in Romania. The applicant identified as male, on 21 February 2017, by means of the Deed Poll procedure; on 29 June 2020, he obtained in the United Kingdom a Gender Recognition Certificate confirming the male gender identity. In May 2021, he contacted the competent Romanina authorities requesting, directly on the basis of the Deed Poll and the Gender Identity Certificate, that the change of gender and first name be entered in the birth certificate, that the appropriate change be made to the personal numeric code to reflect the male gender, and that a matching birth certificate be issued. He contested the negative to the application before the Judecătoria Sectorului 6 București (Court of First Instance, Sector 6, Bucharest), which is asking now the Court of Justice the following questions:

(1)     Does the fact that Article 43(i) and Article 57 of Legea nr. 119/1996 privind actele de stare civilă (Law No 119/1996 on civil status documents) do not recognise changes in civil status made in another Member State by means of the procedure for legal recognition of gender to entries concerning gender and first name by a transgender man who has dual nationality (Romanian and of another Member State) and require a Romanian citizen to bring, from the outset, separate judicial proceedings in Romania against the local Public Service for Personal Records and Civil Status – proceedings which have been held to lack clarity and foreseeability by the European Court of Human Rights (X and Y v. Romania, nos. 2145/16 and 20607/16, 19 January 2021) and which may lead to a decision contrary to that taken by the other Member State – constitute an obstacle to the exercise of the right to European citizenship (Article 20 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union) and/or the right of citizens of the Union to move and reside freely (Article 21 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union and Article 45 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union) in conditions of dignity, equality before the law and non-discrimination (Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union; Article 18 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, and Articles 1, 20 and 21 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union), respecting the right to private and family life (Article 7 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union)?

(2)     Does the departure of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union affect the answer to the above question, in particular where (i) the procedure for changing civil status was commenced before Brexit and was completed during the transition period, and (ii) the impact of Brexit means that the person cannot benefit from rights attached to European citizenship, including the right to free movement and residence, except on the basis of Romanian identity or travel documents in which that person appears with a female gender and first name, contrary to the gender identity that has already been legally recognised?

A hearing is scheduled on 23 January 2024.

In a post published on 8 June 2023, I introduced Zubaydah v Foreign, Development and Commonwealth Office, a case heard by the UK Supreme Court on 14 and 15 June.

Abu Zubaydah, the claimant (respondent in the appeal), has brought a tort claim against the UK government (appellants in the appeal), alleging that MI5 and MI6 officers made requests, from their London offices, to their CIA counterparts to interrogate him in circumstances where they knew or ought to have known of his rendition, unlawful imprisonment and torture by the CIA. The central issue was the law applicable to the claim, specifically focusing on the disputed application of the escape clause from section 12 of the Private International Law (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1995. The facts of the case, the claim, the central issue and the parties’ arguments are presented in my post of 8 June.

On 20 December 2023, the court delivered its judgment, dismissing the appeal in a four to one decision (Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Kitchin, Lord Burrows and Lord Stephens; Lord Sales dissenting). The court held that English law governed the claim, and not the laws of Afghanistan, Lithuania, Morrocco, Poland and Thailand and the law in force in Guantanamo Bay (“Six Countries”).

Interestingly, the court found that both the High Court and the Court of Appeal had erred in their approaches to section 12. The Court of Appeal, in particular, erred by focusing solely on the defendants’ conduct said to have occurred in England. It should have also taken into account the CIA’s conduct ([80], [81]). Hence, the Supreme Court conducted its own choice-of-law analysis.

The connections between the torts and the Six Countries were held to be weak for five reasons. First, Zubaydah was involuntarily present in the Six Countries ([75], [93]). Second, the defendants were entirely indifferent to Zubaydah’s location ([76], [94]). Third, Zubaydah was rendered to and detained in de facto black legal holes ([77], [95]). Fourth, he was held in six such facilities in six countries ([96]). Fifth, his gaolers and torturers were not agents of the Six Countries, but of a third country, ie the US ([97]).

Conversely, the connections between the torts and England were deemed strong for three reasons. First, the defendant is the UK government ([99]). Second, the relevant events occurred partly in England and for the perceived benefit of the UK ([78], [100]). Third, the defendants acted “in their official capacity in the purported exercise of powers conferred under the law of England and Wales… The defendants are all emanations of the UK Government and were at all material times subject to the criminal and public law of England and Wales.” ([101]; similarly [78])

Considering all these factors, the court held that it was substantially more appropriate for the applicable law to be English law.

In my post of 8 June, I noted that this case holds importance for private international law for two reasons.

Firstly, it highlights the role of private international law in holding the executive accountable and vindicating fundamental rights, particularly in cases involving alleged wrongs arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority. In my book on the topic, Torts in UK Foreign Relations, I argue that there are no compelling theoretical justifications for the application of foreign law in general to tort claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority. I further argue that the English courts should apply English law to tort claims arising out of the external exercise of British executive authority and reserve the application of foreign law only for certain issues, such as the lawfulness of the relevant conduct. The main reason for advocating the application of English tort law is that, together with English criminal and public law, it is fine-tuned for assuring the accountability of British public authorities. Foreign tort law is unlikely to be able to substitute for English tort law.

The Supreme Court essentially adopts this argument by placing decisive weight on the connections between the torts and England. It reinforces this point in relation to the misfeasance claim by noting, at ([62]), that “there is scope for suggesting, for example, that on the presumed facts of this case, it is a constitutional imperative that the applicable law in relation to the tort of misfeasance in public office in relation to the acts and omissions of the UK Services should be the law of England and Wales”.

Secondly, the parties and the court relied on reasonable/legitimate expectations as important factors in the choice-of-law process. Zubaydah’s involuntary presence in the Six Countries meant that he did not have a reasonable expectation that his situation or activities might be governed by the local laws ([75], [93]). Furthermore, the defendants’ indifference to Zubaydah’s location meant that the defendants never expected or intended their conduct to be judged by reference to the local laws ([94]). It is by partial reliance on this fundamental principle underlying the application of foreign law that the court held that foreign laws did not apply.

The Supreme Court judgment is important for two more reasons. It clarifies that an appellate court can interfere with an evaluative judgment under sections 11 and 12 of the 1995 Act if there is shown to be a clear error of law or the judge has reached a conclusion not reasonably open to them ([57]). Furthermore, it sheds light on the handling of accessory liability claims in choice of law. Such claims involve a secondary wrongdoer defendant and a primary wrongdoer third party. The court held that the “factors which connect a tort or delict” with a country, which the courts should consider when applying the escape clause from section 12, cover not only the allegedly wrongful conduct of the secondary wrongdoer (UK Services) but also that of the primary wrongdoer (the CIA) ([80], [81]). Although this judgment was made in the context of the 1995 Act, these aspects of its reasoning can easily be extrapolated to other choice of law contexts.

On 7 November 2023, less than three weeks after the judgment in Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd (reported here), where the High Court of England and Wales applied the forum non conveniens doctrine to a business and human rights claim, the Inner House of the Scottish Court of Session (Scotland’s supreme civil court) directed around 5,000 Kenyan tea pickers in Campbell v James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd to pursue their claims for occupational injuries in Kenya (previous judgments in this case included [2022] CSIH 29, which addressed the certification of group proceedings, and [2022] CSOH 57, which concerned a motion for anti-suit interdict).

The case and the Inner House’s judgment are notably unusual for several reasons.

Let’s begin with the facts. The claimants, Kenyan tea pickers, brought proceedings against James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd, a Scottish company, in Scotland. Unusually for a transnational business and human rights dispute, the defendant directly employed the claimants in Kenya. No Kenyan subsidiary or supplier was involved in the alleged wrongs. This enabled the claimants to advance relatively straightforward negligence claims for breach of employer’s duty of care.

Everyone agreed that prima facie the court had jurisdiction under rule 1 in Schedule 8 to the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982, which is a rule of general jurisdiction based on the defendant’s domicile. The defendant challenged the court’s jurisdiction on two grounds: the existence of an exclusive Kenyan choice-of-court agreement and forum non conveniens.

The defendant relied on rule 6 in Schedule 8 to the 1982 Act to argue that the Scottish courts had no jurisdiction due to an exclusive Kenyan choice-of-court agreement. This is an unusual argument as this provision deals with the prorogation, not derogation, of jurisdiction of the Scottish courts, and a foreign jurisdiction agreement does not take away jurisdiction from an otherwise competent Scottish court but serves as a significant factor when deciding whether jurisdiction should be exercised. The court did not engage with these subtleties of Scottish private international law. It promptly dismissed this jurisdictional challenge by concluding, quite rightly, that the contract clause in question (“9. Industrial Sickness: The terms of the relevant national legislation shall apply.”) was not a choice-of-court agreement.

A glaring omission in the judgment is the court’s failure to acknowledge that in employment disputes the jurisdiction of the UK courts depends on sections 15A and C-E of the 1982 Act. These provisions transpose the jurisdictional rules for employment matters from the Brussels I bis Regulation into UK law. Consequently, the Scottish courts had jurisdiction over the Scottish-domiciled defendant (section 15C(2)(a)) and a choice-of-court clause in the employment contract could not deprive the claimants of this forum. The protective jurisdictional rules may be departed from only by an agreement made ex post or expanding the available forums for the employee (section 15C(6)). In other words, there was no need to even look at the dispute resolution clause for the purposes of addressing the first jurisdictional challenge.

The court then proceeded to consider forum non conveniens. The defendant contended that a no-fault compensation scheme established by the Work Injury Benefits Act 2007 in Kenya barred claims for damages, insisting that the claimants should pursue compensation under this scheme.

A preliminary question remained unaddressed: is forum non conveniens available when a UK court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute under section 15C?

The primary aim of sections 15A and C-E was, as articulated in the Explanatory Memorandum accompanying a statutory instrument which was used to transpose the jurisdictional rules for employment matters from Brussels I bis into UK law, “to ensure employees are not disadvantaged by EU exit”. Prior to Brexit, jurisdiction under Brussels I bis was mandatory (Owusu). There are other reasons against the availability of forum non conveniens in this context. It may be inconsistent with the objective of employee protection (for the strength of this objective under sections 15A and C-E, see, for example, Gagliari v Evolution Capital Management). If a foreign choice-of-court agreement can only be effective if made ex post or if it expands the available forums for the employee, allowing forum non conveniens, which is normally a less strong reason for staying proceedings, might seem contradictory. Sections 15A and C-E allow the employee to serve the claim form on the employer as of right in England, eliminating the need to seek permission to serve the claim form out of the jurisdiction. It appears inconsistent not to require the claimant to show that the forum is forum conveniens in service out cases, but to allow the defendant to plead forum non conveniens. Consequently, it is unsurprising that leading scholars (A Briggs, Private International Law in English Courts (2^nd edn, OUP 2022) 194 and L Merrett, Employment Contracts and Private International Law (2^nd edn), OUP 2022) 165) suggest that forum non conveniens might not be available in this context.

On the other hand, section 49 of the 1982 Act unequivocally provides that “Nothing in this Act shall prevent any court in the United Kingdom from staying, sisting, striking out or dismissing any proceedings before it, on the ground of forum non conveniens or otherwise, where to do so is not inconsistent with the 2005 Hague Convention.” Additionally, there is the authority of Dicey, Morris and Collins, who, in para 12-012, adopt a tentative view that forum non conveniens is available when a UK court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute under section 15C.

It is a shame that the court did not address this preliminary question of the availability of forum non conveniens.

The Lord Ordinary (first instance judge) decided, relying on expert evidence, that the Kenyan Work Injury Benefits Act 2007 did not apply to the claimants because it did not list back injury as a condition for the no-fault compensation scheme. Although the Act did allow for the possibility of the responsible official listing new conditions, no such decision had been made. He further rejected the plea of forum non conveniens because he decided that the claimants would not obtain justice in the Kenyan courts.

The Inner House disagreed. It found that the Act applied to the claimant’s occupational injuries. It further noted that the no-fault compensation scheme “is said to work well and is cost and lawyer free” ([67]). On the basis of all of this, the court held, at [69], that:

Having regard to the court’s construction of the WIBA, the appropriate manner of proceeding is to sist these proceedings pending resolution of the claims under the WIBA, including any appeals to the [Employment and Labour Relations Court], in Kenya. If the court’s construction, or its understanding of the practical operation of the WIBA, turn out to be ill-founded, or if the WIBA claims were not determined in accordance with the scheme, or if there were to be excessive delay, the court may have to revisit the question of substantial justice and consider whether the sist should be recalled. However, the court cannot determine, as matters presently stand, that the WIBA, if it operates as its terms suggest, is not capable of providing substantial justice. The concept of such justice applies to both parties and envelops the general public interest.

Leaving aside the point that the court invoked here a public interest factor, which sits uneasily with the House of Lords decision in Lubbe v Cape Plc, one gains the impression from this paragraph that the court applied a kind of conditional forum non conveniens doctrine.

But then one reads the next paragraph, where the court said that it was not applying forum non conveniens:

The court will recall the interlocutor of the Lord Ordinary dated 11 July 2023 in so far as it repels the defenders’ second plea-in-law (on forum non conveniens). It will allow the reclaiming motion and sist the group proceedings (GP1/22) pending resolution of the group members’ claims in Kenya under the WIBA scheme. It will not determine the plea of forum non conveniens at present.

One is at a loss what to make of this. The court evidently exercised a form of inherent power to sist the proceedings. But there is no attempt to explain the origin or nature of this power or its interaction with forum non conveniens.

All of this amounts to a very confusing (and confused) judgment. Hopefully, the case will find its way to the Supreme Court. The case is just too important to be decided in this way.

 

— I am grateful to Professor Adrian Briggs and Professor Louise Merrett for sharing their insights regarding the availability of forum non conveniens when a UK court has jurisdiction over an employment dispute under section 15C of the 1982 Act. Additionally, I extend my gratitude to Dr Bobby Lindsay for explaining specific points of Scottish law and for sharing a case note on the first instance judgment in this case, which will be published in the January edition of the Edinburgh Law Review. Finally, I thank Andrew Smith KC and Cameron Smith, who clarified some aspects of this litigation and offered thoughts on the likelihood of obtaining permission to appeal to the UK Supreme Court. Any mistakes or omissions in this post are solely mine.

The last month of 2023 will be a quiet one at the Court of Justice (in PIL terms). As of today, just a hearing and the delivery of an opinion are scheduled.

The hearing in the German case C-35/23, Greislzel, will take place on Thursday 7 December at 9.30 am. The request for a preliminary ruling, lodged in January 2023, addresses the interpretation of Articles 10 and 11 of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa). The Oberlandesgericht Frankfurt am Main (Higher Regional Court, Frankfurt am Main, Germany) is asking:

To what extent is the regulatory mechanism provided for in Article 10 and Article 11 of the Brussels IIa Regulation limited to proceedings conducted in the context of relations between EU Member States? More specifically:

1. 1. Does Article 10 of the Brussels IIa Regulation apply, with the effect that the jurisdiction of the courts in the former State of residence is retained, if the child had his or her habitual residence in an EU Member State (Germany) before his or her removal and the return proceedings under the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (‘the HCAC’) were conducted between an EU Member State (Poland) and a third State (Switzerland) and, in those proceedings, the return of the child was refused?

If question 1 is answered in the affirmative:

1. 2. In the context of Article 10(b)(i) of the Brussels IIa Regulation, what requirements are to be imposed for the purposes of establishing continuing jurisdiction?
   3. Does Article 11 (6) to (8) of the Brussels IIa Regulation also apply in the case of return proceedings implemented under the HCAC in the context of relations between a third State and an EU Member State, as a State of refuge, in so far as the child had his or her habitual residence in another EU member state before the removal?

In the case at hand, a child, born to a German-Polish couple in Switzerland, had been living in Germany with her mother since she was some months old before the two moved to Poland. The father, who remained in Switzerland, had consented to the relocation, but (so he claims) only for some time. Afterwards he applied via the Swiss Central Authority (Federal Office of Justice in Bern) for the return of the child to Switzerland under the 1980 Hague Convention. The District Court for Krakow-Nowa Huta in Krakow, Poland, rejected the application. At a later stage, he lodged a new claim for the return of the child to Switzerland with the German Federal Office of Justice in Bonn, although he did not continue to pursue it. Finally, he applied in Germany for the transfer of sole parental custody of the child and, in the alternative, for the right to determine the place of residence. He also requested that the mother be ordered to return the child to him in Switzerland as of the effective date of the decision.

The request has been allocated to a chamber of five judges, with Mme L.S. Rossi reporting. AG M. Campos Sánchez-Bordona will deliver an opinion beginning of next year.

In addition, AG N. Emilou’s opinion in C-90/22, Gjensidige, expected some time ago, will most probably be published on 14 December.

This post has been written by Dr Bobby Lindsay, Lecturer at the University of Glasgow. He is the author of a forthcoming book in the OUP Private International Law Series, entitled Cross Border Public Law Claims: Private International Law’s Exclusionary Rules.

---

Introduction

It is not uncommon for a Rule formulated within Dicey, Morris and Collins to be treated by English lawyers with near-legislative reverence. Fentiman (‘English Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century’ in Symeonides (ed), Private International Law at the End of the Twentieth Century, 1999, p169) has noted the impression that, at least in practice, ‘coherence in the conflict of laws means coherence with that legendary work’. Even still, it is remarkable for a judgment of the UK Supreme Court to be framed almost exclusively around an inquiry into the scope of one of the Dicey rules. Rule 20(1) of the latest (16^th) edition states:

English courts have no jurisdiction to entertain an action:

(1) for the enforcement, either directly or indirectly, of a penal, revenue or other public law of a foreign state

In Skatteforvaltningen (‘SKAT’) v Solo Capital Partners LLP [2023] UKSC 40, the ‘essential questions’ were identified to be the scope of Rule 20(1) and its application to the facts, which concerned an alleged widescale fraud on the Danish tax authority ([2]). It marks the first time the apex court has considered the revenue rule since Re State of Norway’s Application [1990] 1 AC 723 in 1989, and the first time it directly has addressed the ‘other public law’ strand of Rule 20(1).

Facts and Procedural History

The Danish tax authorities already have contributed to our understanding of the scope of what is now Rule 20(1). But the £4 million sought (via a nominee liquidator) by SKAT’s predecessor in QRS v Frandsen [1999] 1 WLR 2169 pales in significance compared to the £1.44 billion sought by SKAT in the present litigation. The case related to ‘cum-ex’ schemes (also known as ‘dividend stripping’). To create the impression that multiple parties owned shares with dividend entitlements, companies would trade shares with (cum) and without (ex) dividend rights at high volume. That impression allowed those multiple parties to present to tax authorities as meeting the criteria for refunds in respect of dividend tax, when only one party – the true owner of the dividend-entitled shares – could legitimately claim such a refund.

Solo Capital Partners (‘SCP’), the appellants, allegedly assisted companies with such a scheme to SKAT’s detriment. Non-residents of Denmark are liable to pay 27% in ‘withholding’ tax (WHT) on dividends received from Danish companies. Before paying out on dividends, Danish companies will withhold the tax which is due and pay this to SKAT to discharge the shareholder’s liability, before passing on the residue to the shareholder or their agent. However, taxpayers falling under provisions of relevant double taxation treaties were entitled to receive a full or partial refund in relation to the withheld WHT. Clients of SCP presented themselves to SKAT as entitled to WHT refunds, which they duly received. But SKAT later alleged that those clients never owned the relevant shares, never were liable for WHT, and were not entitled to those refunds. The scale of the fraud has become a national Danish scandal, and one factor behind the reorganisation of SKAT into seven separate authorities.

Tortious, equitable, and restitutionary claims (in English and Danish law) were brought by SKAT in England against (as at the time of the Supreme Court’s decision) 89 defendants, including SCP and associated parties. To keep such mass litigation manageable, trials of two preliminary issues were directed: the first on jurisdiction; the second to establish what constituted a valid WHT application under Danish tax law. Andrew Baker J found against SKAT on the jurisdiction point ([2021] EWHC 974 (Comm)), holding that SKAT’s claims were inadmissible attempts to enforce Danish revenue law. This was reversed by the Court of Appeal ([2022] EWCA Civ 234). Permission to appeal to the Supreme Court successfully was obtained by SCP; the trial of the second preliminary issue continued to judgment while the Supreme Court heard the jurisdiction point.

Judgment

Lord Lloyd-Jones first notes ([21]) the suggestion of the editors of Dicey, Morris and Collins that the rule does not really go to the existence of the English court’s jurisdiction, but to its exercise. His Lordship then observes the distinction between the enforcement of a revenue law (which is forbidden) and the recognition of such a law (which is permitted). He then goes on ([22]) to discuss the two primary justifications which have been put forward for the rule. First, sovereignty: by submitting a tax claim in State B, State A exceeds the bounds of its own sovereignty in an impermissible manner. Secondly, the avoidance of embarrassment: the admittance of revenue claims might risk the forum having to declare a particular foreign tax as contrary to public policy, and so wholesale rejection is said to be the safest court. Lord Lloyd-Jones disfavoured the second rationale. English courts, eg in asylum cases, or those involving forum non conveniens and the foreign act of state doctrine(s), may have cause to criticise the conduct of foreign states, their institutions, or their legal system. The sovereignty rationale provided ‘a principled basis’ for the rule.

The key dispute between the parties was whether the existence of an unsatisfied foreign revenue claim was a prerequisite for the application of the revenue rule ([23]). Lord Lloyd-Jones surveyed ([24]-[32]) revenue law authorities from Sydney Municipal Council v Bull [1909] 1 KB 7 up to Webb v Webb [2020] UKPC 22. In each, the relevant court operated on the assumption that the revenue law rule prohibits the collection or recovery of tax which has not been paid. Importantly, this was consistent with the speeches in the House of Lords in Williams & Humbert Ltd v W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368 (see [27]-[29]). There, Lord Mackay noted (at 441A) that the ‘enforcement’ of a foreign revenue law could not be said to arise where ‘no claim under that law remained unsatisfied’: an ‘unsatisfied claim’ was an ‘essential feature’ of the application of the revenue rule.

Lord Lloyd-Jones concluded ([36]) that the existence of an unsatisfied demand for tax was a prerequisite for the application of the revenue rule. Without such a claim, the foreign tax authority’s action cannot be said to involve the enforcement of the foreign revenue law. Not only was this consistent with the ratio of Williams & Humbert, but the limitation was consistent with the sovereignty-based rationale for the revenue rule: if no tax was due, then the tax authority’s claim could not be an extraterritorial assertion of the sovereign power to impose tax. It also cohered with the enforcement/recognition distinction. As the whole basis of SKAT’s claim was that no tax was due from the relevant parties at any point, the revenue rule was not engaged on the facts ([38]-[39]). While the ‘Danish tax system undoubtedly provided the context and opportunity for the alleged fraud and the operation of the fraud can be understood only by an examination of that system’, that did not make the claim one for the enforcement of Danish tax law. At most, the resolution of the claims would involve the recognition of various aspects of the Danish tax regime by the English courts, which was permissible. These were simply private law claims of the same variety as enjoyed by ‘all legal and natural persons’ ([42]).

Nor were the claims precluded by the wider ‘sovereign power’ rule: it was not a claim to recover amounts imposed by Danish public law and did not involve the exercise of any ‘prerogative right’ ([53]-[54]). The test in Mbasogo v Logo Ltd [2006] EWCA Civ 1370, focusing on the exercise of a peculiarly sovereign/prerogative/pubic right, effectively was endorsed ([55]-[57]). Any initial exercise of sovereignty by Denmark was too remote from the claims before the English courts to see them fall foul of that test; the tax regime merely provided the context for the restitutionary claims, which could have been pursued by any private party ([58]). That conclusion was not altered by the fact that SKAT had acquired evidence through sovereign powers: that was ‘at most, of merely peripheral significance’ to the characterisation of the claim ([61]). The claims, therefore, fell entirely outside the scope of Rule 20(1), and now may proceed to trial, which presently is listed to take place for well over one year.

Comment

The judgment in SKAT puts it beyond doubt that an unsatisfied tax claim due under foreign law is a prerequisite for the application of the revenue rule. In a decision handed down between the High Court and Court of Appeal judgments in SKAT, a majority of the Hong Kong Court of Appeal refused to conclude definitively on this point. Andrew Baker J’s first instance judgment played some role in the hesitancy of the majority; the categorical view of a unanimous UK Supreme Court to the contrary will no doubt influence the future position in Hong Kong and elsewhere.

Despite clearly stating the limits of the revenue rule, the decision does not give much succour to those (such as the present author) who would like to see the rule pared back. The rule still is alive and well. In discussing the conspiracy claim brought by HMRC in Case C-49/12 Sunico, Lord Lloyd-Jones opines ([44]-[47]) that private law actions brought by a foreign tax authority still will be caught by the revenue rule if their success would have the effect of making good on an unsatisfied tax claim. That stands in opposition to conclusions reached (albeit on a preliminary basis) in Hong Kong and Singapore, but a similar approach recently has been adopted in Gibraltar. The rule still will constitute a firm barrier to attempts by foreign tax authorities to pursue claims for tax the payment which has been evaded by fraudsters.

The judgment also confirms that the ‘other public law’ rule, possibly rebranded as the ‘sovereign authority rule’, definitively forms part of the exclusionary rules of English private international law.  That raises the question of its relationship with the revenue and penal law rules. Rule 20(1) suggests the ‘other public law’ rule sits alongside the revenue and penal rules. However, following SKAT, it seems that the ‘sovereign authority rule’ is a higher-order principle, and that the revenue and penal law rules are specific categories of its operation. Lord Lloyd-Jones notes ([54]) that ‘it would require exceptional circumstances’ to bring a claim falling outside the revenue rule within the ‘wider sovereign authority rule’, and it is difficult to envisage what such circumstances could entail. Lord Lloyd-Jones notes ([62]) that the sovereign authority rule, but not the revenue rule, may be subject to a public policy exception. While it might seem strange that a public policy exception operates at the general, but not the specific, level, the situation can be compared (loosely and impressionistically) with the law of negligence. There, a claim falling within an established category attracts the application of fixed rules, but a novel claim invites wider considerations of policy. The existence of that policy stopgap perhaps makes up for the fact that definition of what is an ‘other foreign public law’, or what involves the exercise of foreign ‘sovereign authority’, sometimes can be elusive.

Whether the Supreme Court’s analysis of SKAT’s claim makes that definitional exercise any more straightforward is a question for another time. More, too, could be said about Rule 20 being described as one which goes to the ‘admissibility’ of foreign claims (eg [1], [15], [39]). The Supreme Court’s faith in the ‘sovereignty’ justification, rendered contestable by convincing attacks by Carter, and a sustained recent critique by O’Hanlon, also deserves further comment. And nothing in the decision does much to help illuminate the precise relationship between Rule 20(1) (the revenue rule, the penal rule, and the ‘sovereign authority’ rule) and Rule 20(2) (the various act of state doctrines). But, on the narrow question presented to the Court, its very clear limitation of the revenue rule is to be welcomed.

A post published a few days ago on this blog presented, and briefly discussed, the private international law issues raised by the case of Indi Gregory, the critically ill eight-month-old child that parents wanted to transfer to Italy, to avoid the withdrawal of the life-sustaining treatment she was receiving at a hospital in England.

In fact, the child’s doctors at Queen’s Medical Centre in Nottingham had assessed that withdrawing the life-sustaining treatment would be in Indi’s best interests, having regard to the pain she was enduring because of the treatment itself and the lack of prospects of improvement. The parents disagreed, and sought to have the treatment extended for as long as possible.

As explained in more detail in the post mentioned above, the English High Court ruled in favour of the hospital trust in October 2023, and authorized the withdrawal of the treatment. A request for permission to appeal against the ruling was dismissed, and so was a subsequent application to the High Court whereby Indi’s parents sought to have the initial ruling reconsidered in light of new circumstances, including the fact that a hospital in Rome had expressed its availability to provide Indi with the extended treatment that parents were seeking.

Several readers will likely be aware by now of the dramatic developments of the case, as these were largely reported in the media throughout Europe and elsewhere. Indi was eventually transferred to a hospice in England, where she died on 13 November 2023, soon after the first steps for the court-approved withdrawal plan were put in place.

Before this tragic epilogue occurred, Indi’s parents had sought permission to appeal against an additional order given by Peel J for the High Court. Specifically, the parents had challenged the decision whereby the removal of invasive mechanical ventilation, i.e., extubation, that Peel J had previously authorised, should take place at a hospice. Their case was that Indi should be rather extubated at home.

On 10 November 2023, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales dismissed the application, assessing that no grounds appeared to exist to reconsider the order. The Court held, in particular that, contrary to the parents’ submission, they had not suffered from any unfairness in the proceedings before the High Court (Indi’s father claimed, inter alia, that he did not know that he had the opportunity to get his own evidence about the issue of the location of extubation at the hearing held before Peel J), and that the conditions for reopening a court’s earlier determination of a child’s best interests were not met in the circumstances.

The Court of Appeal had not been asked to deal with issues of private international law for the purposes of fiving the ruling of 10 November. In a significant obiter, however, the Court did address such issues.

It is worth recalling that on 6 November 2023 the Italian Government decided to grant Italian citizenship to Indi Gregory, and that, shortly afterwards, the Italian Consul in Manchester, acting as a “guardianship judge” pursuant to Italian legislation, took two measures. First, as reported by the Court of Appeal, the Consul issued a decree – arguably, one taken as a matter of urgency – whereby he appointed a guardian for Indi and authorised her removal to Italy for treatment. Secondly, the Consul wrote to the High Court requesting that that he be authorised to exercise jurisdiction over the case in accordance with Article 9(1) of the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on the Protection of Children, which permits such a request where the requesting authority considers that they are better able to assess the child’s best interests. compared with the authorities in the State where the child is habitually resident.

The Court of Appeal, in the words of Peter Jackson, criticised the latter moves in unusually strong terms. Having noted that the “only basis upon which such a request could even theoretically be made in Indi’s case is that she was granted Italian citizenship”, the Court observed that in hearings before the High Court and before the Court of Appeal itself, Indi’s father had “accepted that decisions about Indi’s welfare are to be made by [English] courts”, adding that

in any case, the argument that the Italian authorities are better able than the English court to determine Indi’s best interests is in our view wholly misconceived and a request of this nature is clearly contrary to the spirit of this important international convention.

The Court did not elaborate on the denounced misconception nor on the spirit of the Convention.

Arguably, the obiter reflects an understanding of the Hague Convention on the Protection of Children that could be summarised as follows.

1. The Convention, as stated in the preamble, aims to “improve the protection of children in international situations”. It does so by avoiding (or managing) conflicts between their Contracting States’ legal systems in respect of jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of measures for the protection of children.

2. Contracting States share the view that, as stated in the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and recalled in the Hague Convention’s own preamble, “the best interests of the child are to be a primary consideration”. The Convention, based as it is on the assumption that the protection of children is best ensured in a cross-border cases through international cooperation, builds on mutual trust among Contracting States. It is in fact mutual trust, combined with the primary consideration owed to the best interests of the child, that suggests that the authorities of a State other than the State of habitual residence of the child should refrain, in principle, from exercising their jurisdiction over the child, let alone disregarding the measures taken by the authorities of the State of habitual residence.

3. The substantive and procedural rules applied in one Contracting State may differ from those in force in another, but such differences do not mean that Contracting States may, as a matter of principle, step out from the framework of cooperation established by the Convention, and depart from its rules (engaging with differences is precisely the purpose of private international law, generally). Put in another way, it may be that the (political) institutions of a Contracting State disagree with the way in which a particular case is handled by the (judicial) authorities of another (including because of the rules and standards applied by such authorities to decide the case differ from the rules and standard that the former institutions would follow in the circumstances), but the Convention does not permit the former State to interfere, on this ground, with the work carried out by the authorities of the latter State, notably by issuing competing orders.

4. Habitual residence is the key connecting factor under the Convention for the purposes of allocating jurisdiction. It was chosen on the assumption that, generally, the authorities of the State where the centre of the child’s interests are located, regardless of the child’s nationality, are best placed to assess his or her interests. Nationality, too, may play a role, but only insofar as the circumstances indicate that the authorities of the State of nationality would be better place to assess the child’s interests in the particular case concerned, provided, in any case, that the authorities of the State of habitual residence agree with this finding. The mere fact that a child possesses the nationality of a Contracting State does not confer as such on the authorities of the State of nationality the power to rule on the child.

While EU harmonization in matters of parenthood is approaching, following the Commission’s proposal of last year [COM (2022) 695 final], national courts are still examining applications for recognition of foreign court decisions in accordance with domestic legislation. Earlier this year, the Areios Pagos, i.e., the Hellenic Supreme Court, was asked to decide whether an Austrian judicial declaration of paternity should be denied recognition on grounds of public policy, or not (Areios Pagos, Judgment No. 170/2023, available in Greek here).

Facts

First stage: Austria

In 2012, an Austrian national (A), domiciled in Austria, started non-contentious proceedings before the District Court of Eastern Graz, in Austria, against a Greek national (B), whose residence was in Thessaloniki, Greece. Born in 1968, A sought a declaration that B was her father. The court ruled in 2015 that B, who had died shortly before the publication of the decision, was in fact the father of A.

The Graz Civil Court of First Instance, seised by the heirs of B, dismissed the appeal in 2016. The appellants further filed an (extraordinary) appeal against the latter decision, but this appeal, too, was dismissed.

The judicial declaration of paternity was declared​ final in Austria in June 2016.

Second Stage: Greece

On an application filed before the Thessaloniki Court of first Instance, the Austrian judicial declaration was recognized in Greece pursuant to the pertinent provisions of the Greek Code of Civil Procedure (mainly Article 780, on the recognition of foreign judgments issued in non-contentious proceedings). The heirs of B challenged the recognition, to no avail. They seised, then, the Greek Supreme Court, arguing, among other things, that the Austrian decision should not be recognized in Greece on the ground that its recognition would offend Greek public policy. They noted that the Austrian rules governing proceedings aimed at a declaration of paternity differ profoundly from the corresponding Greek rules, notably as regards the time limits on applying for such a declaration. 

The Supreme Court’s Judgment

In its ruling, the Supreme Court focused on Paragraph 148 of the Austrian Civil Code, on judicial determination of paternity, which reads as follows:

(1) The court must establish the paternity of the man from whom the child is descended. The application may be made by the child against the man or by the man against the child.

(2) On application by the child, the man who was present with the mother for not more than 300 and not less than 180 days before the birth or with whose semen medically assisted procreation was performed on the mother during this period may be established as the father, unless he proves that the child is not his offspring. Such recognition is no longer possible two years after the man’s death, unless the child proves that he or she is unable to provide evidence in accordance with para. 1 for reasons on the man’s side.

The Supreme Court then turned to corresponding Greek rule on the matter, namely Article 1483 of the Civil Code, which states:

A mother’s right to request recognition of her child’s paternity is extinguished when five years have passed since birth. The child’s right shall be extinguished one year after the child has reached the age of majority, and the right of the father or his parents two years after the mother has refused consent.

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal. It acknowledged that Austrian law sets a two-year limitation period starting from the death of the father, whereas Greek law stipulates that an application for a declaration of paternity may be lodged no later than one year after the child has reached the age of majority, but observed that such a difference in regulation does not amount to a violation of public policy.

The Supreme Court concluded that recognition of the Austrian declaration ought to be granted in Greece, given that nothing in the judgment in question offends the basic principles of the Greek legal order.

Some Remarks

Two years ago, the Athens Court of Appeal was called upon to examine the recognition of a German decision. The issues raised by the case are similar to those surrounding the Supreme Court’s ruling examined above. A German citizen, 31 years old at the date of filing, had seised a German court (the Schöneberg Justice of the Peace) seeking a declaration that the respondent, a Spaniard living in Athens, was his father. The German court upheld the application, and issued a declaration of paternity, which eventually became final in Germany.

At first instance, the German decision was granted recognition in Greece. The Athens Court of Appeal, however, later decided otherwise (Judgment No. 2736/2021, published in Private Law Chronicles 2021, p. 438 ff.).

In brief, it ruled as follows: the fact that the appellee applied for recognition of paternity before the German courts for the first time 13 years after he came of full age and subsequently, after 17 years, for the recognition of the German court decision in Greece, constitutes a breach of the time limits laid down by Greek law concerning applications for a declaration of paternity, and accordingly contravenes the public policy of Greece, since it constitutes an expression of abusive conduct

The Athens Court relied for this on the Greek Constitution and on the European Convention on Human Rights, in conjunction with Article 33 of the Greek Civil Code (on the public policy exception) and, more generally, the Greek legal order, which is concerned with the protection of third parties and the protection of public interest, as regards legal relationships that have been established and settled to date, i.e., 17 years after the appellant came of full age.

The Court of Appeal concluded that the Court of First Instance wrongly failed to examine whether the legal effects of the abovementioned German judgment, based on German law, correspond in substance to Greek law. Were Greek law applied, the legal consequences would have been diametrically opposed, and the application would have been dismissed, since the appellee had lost the right to bring the action long ago. Therefore, the court which delivered the judgment under appeal was not entitled to recognize the res judicata effect of that German judgment in Greece.

Article 31 para 1(a) of the Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition of decisions and acceptance of authentic instruments in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood, states

The recognition of a court decision shall be refused: (a) if such recognition is manifestly contrary to the public policy of the Member State in which recognition is invoked, taking into account the child’s interests.

The addition of the last part of the wording (taking into account the child’s interests), which is also featured in the Brussels II ter Regulation (Article 39(1)(a): taking into account the best interests of the child), is a clear message towards a stronger protection of the children. The question here is whether the protective shield refers to children of any age, i.e., even those children who have already passed the age of majority since many years.

Indi Gregory is an eight-month-old child. She suffers from profound metabolic, neurological and cardiological disorders. At the time of writing this post she was a patient at an intensive care unit at a hospital in Nottingham.

A few months ago, the doctors who have been treating Indi in England came to the conclusion that her illness is incurable and that, given the pain caused by the life supporting treatment she is receiving, it is in Indi’s best interest that such treatment be withdrawn.

The parents disagreed and have since reiterated their wish to have the treatment continued. They made contact with a paediatric hospital in Italy, which made itself available to explore further options and continue treating the child.

The matter was dealt with by the High Court of England and Wales. This dramatic case, which reminds of similar cases involving children with incurable diseases, widely covered by the press (including the cases of Charlie Gard and Alfie Evans), raises a number of highly sensitive issues, legally and ethically. It also raises some private international law issues, as a result of the fact that Indi was recently granted Italian citizenship and that the Italian authorities, namely the Italian Consul in Manchester, claimed jurisdiction over the matter and issued orders aimed at transferring Indi to Rome.

This post is exclusively concerned with the latter issues.

Proceedings in England and in the European Court of Human Rights

The hospital Trust seised the High Court of England and Wales, in September 2023, seeking authorisation to remove the life sustaining care Indi was receiving, on the ground that, according to the Trust, there was no prospect of recovery, Indi’s life expectancy was very limited, the treatments she was receiving were causing her a high level of pain and suffering, and there was no discernible quality of life or interaction by Indi with the world around her.

The parents opposed the application, alleging, inter alia, that Indi had prospects of gaining a degree of autonomy, that she was showing small signs of improvement, and that the precise causes of her presentation are unclear and required further time and investigation.

On 13 October 2023, the Family division of the High Court ruled in favour of the Trust. Peel J explained:

With a heavy heart, I have come to the conclusion that the burdens of invasive treatment outweigh the benefits. In short, the significant pain experienced by this lovely little girl is not justified when set against an incurable set of conditions, a very short life span, no prospect of recovery and, at best, minimal engagement with the world around her. In my judgment, having weighed up all the competing considerations, her best interests are served by permitting the Trust to withdraw invasive treatment in accordance with the care plan presented.

Shortly afterwards, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales was seised of an appeal against the decision, by the parents, based on three grounds. By a ruling of 23 October 2023, the Court concluded that there was no prospect of an appeal on either of those grounds succeeding, and accordingly refused permission to appeal.

The parents of Indi Gregory seised the European Court of Human Rights, seeking an urgent order that would prohibit the withdrawal of life supporting treatment. The Strasbourg Court, however, did not uphold their request.

Peel J of the High Court was then again seised by Indi’s parents. They sought permission for the care of their child to be transferred to other medical professionals, at a hospital in Rome. On 2 November 2023, the High Court dismissed the application on the ground that there was no material change of circumstances, or other compelling reason, to justify reconsideration of the original order.

Specifically, concerning the proposal by the Rome hospital for cardiac intervention, Peel J considered that such intervention was inappropriate “because of the severity of the underlying conditions, IG’s instability and the lack of prospect of any meaningful quality of life, and the ongoing burden and pain of invasive treatment”. He added that “invasive life sustaining treatment is no longer appropriate for IG” and that the “substantial burdens of such treatment significantly outweigh any perceived (but in my judgment negligible) benefit, in a context where her life expectancy is very short, and her conditions irreversible”. He explained that,

there is nothing to suggest that IG’s prognosis would be beneficially altered by the Italian hospital’s treatment. On the contrary, it may well prolong pain and suffering if and to the extent that it incorporates invasive procedures which in my judgment are not in IG’s best interests, and should not be sanctioned.

Steps Taken by the Italian Government and Authorities

On 6 November 2023, the Italian Government decided to grant Italian citizenship to Indi Gregory. It relied for this on Article 9(2) of the Italian Statute on Citizenship (Law No 91 of 1992), according to which citizenship may be granted, through a Presidential Decree, where to do so is of “exceptional interest for the Italian State”.

According to the press release accompanying the decision, such an interest consisted, in the circumstances, in providing IG with additional therapeutic opportunities (“ulteriori sviluppi terapeutici”), for the purposes of safeguarding the pre-eminent humanitarian values underlying the case (“preminenti valori umanitari”). The decision, the press release explains, was adopted following a request by the parents of the child, in connection with their wish to have Indi transferred to Rome to receive further treatment.

The author of this post was unable to retrieve any official document explaining in which way, i.e., based on which legal grounds and reasoning, the fact of making Indi Grgeory an Italian citizen would alter the picture resulting from the orders of Peel J, and increase the chances of Indi being transferred to Rome.

Be that as it may, on 8 November 2023, according to press reports, the Italian Consul in Manchester asserted that Italian authorities had jurisdiction over the case, precisely on the ground that Indi had become an Italian citizen, and ordereed that IG be transferred to Italy. The decision was taken by the Consul in his capacity of “guardianship judge”, that is, in the exercise of the judicial functions that Italian law confers on the heads of consular posts as regards, specifically, the protection of minors of Italian nationality outside the territory of Italy. The Consul also appointed a special representative of IG to take care of the implementation of the order. Press reports indicate that the appointed representative made contact with the hospital managers seeking their “cooperation”.

Further Developments

The English High Court made a new ruling on 8 November 2023. The parents wished to take the child back home, in Derbyshire, and have the extubation and the resulting compassionate care performed there.

Peel J dismissed the request. He observed that Indi “should continue to have clinical treatment of the highest quality, carried out in a safe and sustainable setting”, which would “not be available at home”, noting that

for the plan to work at home, there needs to be a close, constructive and engaged level of communication between the parents and the Trust/relevant clinicians, but, unfortunately, that does not appear to be the case.

Interestingly, for the purposes of this post, Peel J took note that Indi had very recently been granted Italian citizenship, while adding that the Indi’s father (the mother did not intervene at the hearing)

acknowledged, correctly and properly, that my decisions and orders are unaffected by this development.

Rumours circulated in the press concerning a possible agreement between the Italian and the UK Governments regarding the transfer of Indi to Italy, although no indications were given as to the legal grounds on which the decisions of the High Court could be superseded.

Withdrawal of life support is expected to be carried out today, 9 November 2023, at 15 CET.

Some Remarks on the Private International Law Aspects of the Case

The text of the order issued by the Italian Consul in Manchester has not been made publicly available. The author of this post is not aware of the exact provisions of the order. The grounds on which the Consul asserted that the case comes with the jurisdiction of Italian authorities are also not known. It is also not known whether the Consul addressed the issue of the recognition of the English orders in the Italian legal system, and, in the affirmative, what conclusions were reached in that regard. In addition, it is not known whether any exchanges occurred between the Consul and the High Court either prior to the Consul’s order or at a later stage.

The following remarks are, accordingly, of a general nature, and do not purport to represent an analysis, let alone an assessment, of the measures taken by the Italian authorities.

The Hague Child Protection Convention

Italy and the UK are parties to the Hague Child Protection Convention of 19 October 1996.

As stated in Article 1(1)(a), the Convention aims, inter alia, to “determine the State whose authorities have jurisdiction to take measures directed to the protection of the person or property of the child”. Cases like that of Indi Gregory appear to come with the material scope of the Convention.

Pursuant to Article 5(1) of the Hague Child Protection Convention, the authorities of the Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child have jurisdiction to take measures directed to the protection of the child’s person or property. In relation to States, like the UK, in which two or more systems of law regarding the protection of children apply in different territorial units, reference to habitual residence must be construed, as clarified in Article 47(1), as referring to habitual residence in a territorial unit. Thus, as concerns children whose habitual residence is in England, English courts have jurisdiction.

As a rule, the authorities of the State of which the child is a national do not have jurisdiction under the Convention.

Rather, the Convention contemplates the possibility that a case be transferred by the authorities having jurisdiction based on Article 5 to the authorities of a different Contracting State.

Specifically, Article 8 stipulates that the authority of the State of habitual residence of the child, if they consider that the authority of another Contracting State “would be better placed in the particular case to assess the best interests of the child” (including the authorities of the State of nationality of the child), may request that other authority to assume jurisdiction to take such measures of protection as they consider to be necessary, or suspend consideration of the case and invite the parties to introduce such a request before the authority of that other State.

Article 9 goes on to state that the authorities to which the case may be transferred (including, again, the authorities of the State of nationality), if they consider that they are better placed in a particular case to assess the child’s best interests, they may request the competent authority of the Contracting State of the habitual residence of the child that they be authorised to exercise jurisdiction to take the measures of protection which they consider
to be necessary. The authorities concerned may then proceed to an exchange of views.

In the case of Indi Gregory, the English High Court has, so far, not considered that the Italian authorities would be better placed to deal with the case, including after the Court was informed that an Italian hospital was available to treat the child and that Indi had been made an Italian citizen.

On 9 November 2023 news reports had that the Italian Consul in Manchester had approached the High Court in connection with a request based on Article 9 of the Convention. Very few details were available on this  at the time of publishing this post.

The urgency of the matter does not appear to change things. The Hague Convention includes a special provision that applies in “all cases of urgency”, namely Article 11, but this provision confers jurisdiction on the authorities of the Contracting State “in whose territory the child or property belonging to the child is present”.

It is worth adding that measures relating to the protection of a child emanating from the authorities (including a Consul, as the case may be) of a Contracting State are entitled to recognition in all other Contracting States “by operation of law”, as stated in Article 23(1). However, recognition may be refused, according to Article 23(2)(a) “if the measure was taken by an authority whose jurisdiction was not based on one of the grounds provided for in Chapter II”, of the Convention, i.e., Article 5 and following.

Does the Involvement of a Consular Authority Change the Picture?

One may wonder whether the picture resulting from the above provisions of the Hague Child Protection Convention could be affected in some way where a consular post, rather than a judicial authority, claims to take measures directed at the protection of a child.

The Hague Convention applies, as such, to all the authorities of a Contracting States with competence over matters within the scope of the Convention itself. The nature of the authorities involved in a given case are, accordingly, immaterial. Rather, where a consular post is involved, it is appropriate to assess whether the rules governing consular relations may play a role, and possibly affect the operation of the Hague Convention.

Both the UK and Italy are parties to the Vienna Convention on consular relations, of 24 April 1963. In addition, the two countries have concluded between themselves, in 1954, a consular convention.

Article 5 of the Vienna Convention describes consular functions as including, among others, “safeguarding … the interests of minors … who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such person”. As specified in Article 5(h), the latter function is to be exercised by consular posts “within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State”.

For their part, the authorities of the receiving State (the English authorities, in the case of Indi), are required, according to Article 37(b) of the Vienna Convention “to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor … who is a national of the sending State”. It is clarified, however, that the giving of this information is “without prejudice to the operation of the laws and regulations of the receiving State concerning such appointments”.

The bilateral consular convention does not appear to extend the functions of consular authorities regarding the protection of children, nor impose on the authorities of the receiving State duties that go beyond what is provided in the Vienna Convention, in particular as regards the jurisdiction of courts and the recognition of foreign decisions.

As a result, it is difficult to see how the findings above, made in respect of the Hague Child Protection Convention, could be modified in light of the involvement of a consular authority.

For further developments regarding the case of Indi Gregory, see here.

In November 2023, the Fourth Chamber of the Court of Justice, with C. Lycourgos presiding and O. Spineau-Matei reporting, will hand down her decision in case C-497/22, Roompot Service. The scheduled delivery date is Thursday 16. The request for a preliminary ruling, from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), was lodged on 22 July 2022, focuses on Article 24 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The question reads:

Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?

Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour’s opinion was published on June 29. He offers a principal answer and a subsidiary one:

The first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] must be interpreted as meaning:

principally, that it does not apply to a contract under which holiday accommodation in a holiday park is made available by a tourism professional for short-term personal use;

in the alternative, that it covers a claim for repayment of part of the price paid following a change by one of the parties to the terms of a contract for the rental of holiday accommodation.

This double proposal relates to the fact that, according to Mr. Richard de la Tour, in light of the decision in C-289/90, Hacker, the contractual relationship in the case at hand should be classified as a ‘complex contract’ within the meaning of that case-law. By way of consequence, the provision by a tourism professional of accommodation in a holiday park for short-term personal use does not fall within the scope of the first subparagraph of Article 24(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation. The subsidiary answer comes into play only if the Court of Justice gets nevertheless to a different conclusion, thus holds that the contract in question relates exclusively to the letting of holiday accommodation, as in the judgment in C- 8/98, Dansommer.

The next PIL event will take place on Thursday 30. Advocate General N. Emiliou’s opinion on C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte, will then be published. The main proceedings, before the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden), concern international jurisdiction regarding patents under the Brussels I bis Regulation. Here are the questions referred:

1. Is Article 24(4) of [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?
2. Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the Patentlagen (Patents Law; ‘the Patentlagen’), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?
3. Is Article 24(4) of the [the Brussels I bis Regulation] to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

A hearing on the case took place last May. The deciding chamber is composed by judges C. Lycourgos, O. Spineanu-Matei (reporting), J.C. Bonichot, S. Rodin, and L.S. Rossi.

Finally, I would like to report on the hearing on case C-632/22, Volvo (Assignation au siège d’une filiale de la défenderesse), which actually happened on October 18. The request, from the Spanish Supreme Court, was lodged on 10 October 2022. On the website of the Court of Justice it falls under the category ‘Competition’. On the merits, the problem is rather one of service of process in a cross-border setting:

1. In the circumstances surrounding the litigation relating to the trucks cartel, described in this order, is it possible to interpret Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, in conjunction with Article 101 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union, in such a way that service of process on a parent company against which an action for damages for the harm caused by a restrictive trade practice has been brought is considered to have been properly effected when such service was effected (or attempted) at the place of business of the subsidiary company established in the State in which the legal proceedings were brought, while the parent company, which is established in another Member State, has not entered an appearance in the proceedings and has remained in default?

2. If the previous question is answered in the affirmative, is that interpretation of Article 47 of the Charter compatible with Article 53 of the Charter, in the light of the case-law of the Spanish Tribunal Constitucional (Constitutional Court) on the service of process on parent companies established in another Member State in disputes relating to the trucks cartel?

The background of the request is easy to understand. Following publication of the Decision of the European Commission of 19 July 2016 (Case AT. 39824 – Trucks), in Spain thousands of proceedings for damages have been lodged by purchasers of vehicles affected by the trucks cartel. Almost all actions were brought by small or medium undertakings which had purchased a very small number of trucks, or even just one truck, in the period in which the cartel operated. None of the undertakings (parent companies) penalised by the European Commission has its registered office in Spain. Given that, in the majority of the proceedings, the amount claimed is not very high, the costs involved in having to translate the application and, where necessary, any annexes, may be disproportionately high. To avoid such costs and the time delay entailed by the necessary international judicial cooperation, the applicants in those proceedings frequently ask for the service of process at the business address of the subsidiary company in Spain, even though the defendant parent company is established in another Member State.

The preliminary reference has been assigned to the Fifth Chamber (judges E. Regan, M. Ilešič, I. Jarukaitis, D. Gratsias, and, exceptionally, K. Lenaerts), which will supported by the opinion of Advocate General M. Szpunar.

Claimants suing multinational enterprises for business-related human rights abuses have recently had a good run in England. The Supreme Court cleared the jurisdictional hurdles for the claimants in Vedanta and Okpabi. This was followed by the Court of Appeal judgment in Begum and the High Court judgment in Josiya, which opened the door for value chain litigation. In Fundão dam, the Court of Appeal allowed a claim brought by over 200,000 Brazilians in the aftermath of the collapse of a dam in Brazil to proceed (meanwhile, the number of claimants has grown to 700,000, who are seeking £36bn in damages). And in Bravo, the High Court held that the law of a civil law country (Colombia) did not preclude the possibility of liability on the part of a parent company registered in England for the activities of its Colombian subsidiary. Although in Jallah (here and here), the courts held that a claim following an oil spill off the Nigerian coast was time-barred.

Business and human rights cases have even made their way to Scotland. The Court of Session (Outer House) allowed a claim brought by over 1,000 Kenyan tea pickers against a company registered in Scotland to proceed in Campbell v James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd.

Many other business and human rights cases, some of them quite innovative, are currently pending in English courts. All of this has cemented London’s reputation as a (and probably the) global centre for business and human rights litigation.

Ever since Brexit, however, there has been a sense that this type of litigation is running on borrowed time. The UK’s withdrawal from the Brussels system has expanded the use of forum non conveniens and, consequently, has significantly raised the risk of claims failing on jurisdictional grounds.

Limbu v Dyson Technology Ltd, in which the High Court (Deputy High Court Judge Sheldon KC) handed down its judgment on 19 October 2023, is the first post-Brexit case where this risk has materialised.

Facts

Dyson is a multinational enterprise specialising in designing and manufacturing premium household appliances. Its founder and chairman, Sir James Dyson, was a prominent Brexiteer. That is why he caused quite a stir when he announced in early 2019 that his company would move its headquarters to Singapore, although he stated that this move was ‘not linked to the departure from EU’. Dyson’s operational headquarters is now in Singapore, but its registered headquarters is still in England. Dyson has an elaborate value chain. Many of its suppliers are based in East Asia.

Two of Dyson’s suppliers are the Malaysian companies ATA Industrial (M) Sdn Bhd and Jabco Filter System Sdn Bhd. The claimants, who are migrant workers from Bangladesh and Nepal, were employed by the suppliers in their Malaysian factories. They allege that they were victims of various human rights abuses, including violations of labour standards by the suppliers and violations of human rights directly committed by the Malaysian police in which the suppliers were complicit. The claimants commenced proceedings against three companies that are part of the Dyson group, two of which are domiciled in England and one in Malaysia. No proceedings were commenced against the suppliers and the Malaysian police.

The claim was brought in negligence and unjust enrichment. Negligence is a well-known legal basis for remedying business-related human rights violations. The claim in this case builds on Begum and Josiya. The defendants’ duty of care is claimed to have originated from their control over the manufacturing operations and the working conditions at the suppliers’ factories, and out of their public declarations – in mandatory policies and standards – regarding upholding human rights in their value chain. Unjust enrichment is a relatively novel legal basis in this context. The essence of the unjust enrichment claim is that the defendants obtained an unjust benefit as a result of claimants’ circumstances. The claim was brought on 27 May 2022, which is well after the Brexit transition period ended on 31 December 2020. The Brussels I bis Regulation, therefore, did not apply.

The question before the court was one of jurisdiction. The court had jurisdiction over the English companies on the basis of their presence in England. The English companies, however, asked the court to stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens. The claimants sought permission to serve the claim form on the Malaysian company out of the jurisdiction. The defendants had not made an application to strike out the claim, nor had they made an application for summary judgment. The court, therefore, assumed that the claim was arguable and had a reasonable prospect of success. The claimants relied on the necessary and proper party jurisdictional gateway in relation to the Malaysian company. But was England the proper place in which to bring the claim? The Malaysian company sought to set aside the service of the claim form on the basis that England was not the forum conveniens.

The defendants made a number of undertakings to the court as to how they would conduct the proceedings if their application succeeded and the claim was brought in Malaysia. In essence, they undertook to submit to the jurisdiction of the Malaysian courts, to assist the claimants with some of the disbursements and costs, to agree to remote attendance at a hearing and the trial in Malaysia, and not to challenge the lawfulness of any success fee arrangement between the claimants and their Malaysian lawyers.

Judgment

The jurisdictional question was about forum non conveniens. Referring to Spiliada, the court said that the question had to be addressed in two stages. First, was England or Malaysia the natural forum for the litigation? Second, if Malaysia was the natural forum, where there any special circumstances by reason of which justice requires the trial to take place in England? In other words, was there a real risk, based on cogent evidence, that substantial justice would not be obtainable in Malaysia?

The court held that Malaysia was indeed the natural forum. The following factors in particular pointed to this conclusion: Malaysian law applied and the case raised novel points of law; and Malaysia was the centre of gravity of the case due to the harm and the underlying mistreatment occurring there. Interestingly, the availability of remote hearings and communication technology meant that the location of parties and witnesses was not regarded by the court as a particularly important factor.

The court then proceeded to Stage 2. It held that there was no reason for the trial to occur in England. The court found no cogent evidence that: migrant workers had no access to justice in Malaysia; there were no suitably qualified lawyers with necessary expertise who could team up in Malaysia; the proceedings in Malaysia would take too long; the disbursements to be paid by the claimants in Malaysia would be significant; the claimants could not find representation in Malaysia; the defendants or their lawyers would act outside the law, unethically or unprofessionally in Malaysia; it was inappropriate to rely on the defendants’ undertakings; the gaps in funding in Malaysia could not be filled by NGOs; and that partial contingency fee arrangements were unlawful or impracticable. In other words, there was no cogent evidence that the claimants would not obtain substantial justice in Malaysia.

Comment

Dyson is significant because it illustrates the effects of Brexit on business and human rights litigation in England. The combination of general jurisdiction under Brussels I bis and the CJEU’s judgment in Owusu no longer offers a safe jurisdictional haven for victims of business-related human rights abuses. It is clear from Dyson and the cases cited above that the natural forum is almost always going to be in the country where abuses and direct damage occur. There are cases, like Vedanta, where it is possible to prove that substantial justice cannot be obtained in the natural foreign forum. But, as Dyson shows, achieving this is difficult. Many alleged human rights abusers will benefit from this and, thus, collect a handsome ‘Brexit dividend’.

Nevertheless, Dyson has a silver lining. The court assumed that the claim was arguable and had a reasonable prospect of success because the defendants had not made an application to strike out the claim, nor had they made an application for summary judgment (see [18]). The judge reiterated, at [141], that it was reasonable to assume that the claimants had good prospects of success in their claims and would obtain substantial damages if successful. Furthermore, the claimants are likely to appeal and it is not inconceivable that the Court of Appeal might disagree with the judge on the forum non conveniens issue.

Where England is not the natural forum for the trial of the substantive dispute, the English court should not, as a matter of policy or law, restrain proceedings in one foreign jurisdiction where the purpose of the injunction is to favour proceedings in another jurisdiction. In other words…it is no part of the function of the English courts to act as an international policeman in matters of this kind.

This well-known principle, set out by the House of Lords in Airbus Industrie GIE v Patel, does not apply to arbitration. This is the gist of the judgment of the Court of Appeal (Nugee LJ, Snowden LJ and Falk LJ) of 11 October 2023 in Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWCA Civ 1144.

The facts are simple. A German bank issued a guarantee in favour of a Russian company, which was governed by English law and provided for arbitration in Paris. The Russian company commenced court proceedings in Russia. The German bank sought an anti-suit injunction (ASI) in England to restrain the Russian proceedings. English courts have the power to issue injunctions under section 37(1) of the Senior Courts Act 1981 ‘in all cases in which it appears to the court to be just and convenient to do so’. No such injunction could be obtained in France. Should the English court grant an ASI under these circumstances?

Allowing the appeal, the Court of Appeal gave a positive answer to this question. The court reasoned as follows. There is a serious issue to be tried on the merits. The claim falls within the gateway in Practice Direction 6B para 3.1(6)(c), namely a claim in respect of a contract governed by English law. ‘It is the policy of English law that parties to contracts should adhere to them, and in particular that parties to an arbitration agreement, who have thereby impliedly agreed not to litigate elsewhere, should not do so.’ ([38]) ‘Hence the Court will usually grant an ASI to enforce an arbitration agreement unless there is good reason not to’. ([39]) Since French courts cannot grant an ASI and French law ‘has no objection in principle to (and will recognise) the grant of an ASI’ in a case like this ([40]), England is the proper forum in which to bring the claim ‘for the interests of all the parties and the ends of justice’ (Spiliada). Consequently, all the conditions for service out were met. From this point, it was plain sailing. The court regarded ‘the application for an interim ASI as quite straightforward’ because the evidence showed that French law had no objection to this course of action ([42]). Just in case the Russian proceedings were not discontinued, the court also granted an anti-enforcement injunction.

Following the UKSC judgment in Enka, the arbitration agreement in Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC was governed by English law. The authorities on which the Court of Appeal relied to support its argument about the policy of English law (UKSC/UKHL judgments in Ust-Kamenogorsk, West Tankers, Enka; EWCA judgment in The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87) all concerned arbitration agreements governed by English law. The court also relied on the English law of equity concerning the enforcement of contracts governed by English law ([38]-[39], [42]). This indicates that Deutsche Bank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC is most likely confined to arbitration agreements governed by English law (compare the outcomes in two similar cases, which provides support for this statement: Commerzbank AG v RusChemAlliance LLC [2023] EWHC 2510 (Comm) (arbitration agreement governed by English law; ASI granted) and G v R [2023] EWHC 2365 (Comm) (arbitration agreement governed by French law; ASI not granted)).

But the Court of Appeal’s broad statements of principles leave the door open for the argument that upholding all arbitration agreements is a general principle of English law and that, consequently, English courts should restrain foreign court proceedings commenced in breach of arbitration agreements, regardless of their governing law and arbitral seat, as long as the breaching party is present in England or the claim falls within a jurisdictional gateway, ASIs are not available in the courts of the seat, and the country of the seat has no objection in principle to ASIs. This would be a considerable extension of the powers of English courts and an unwelcome development.

That London is a global capital for dispute resolution is well known. But even by London standards, Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v His Majesty Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbón Y Borbón is a spectacular litigation. Like in all complex international litigation, private international law has a role to play in this case. This is the aspect of the case that the High Court (Rice J) addressed in its judgment of 6 October 2023.

This case is complex, as is the High Court judgment, which spans 307 paragraphs or 92 pages. This post will present the key facts of the case, before addressing the four issues of relevance for private international law that the court addressed, namely submission to the court’s jurisdiction, Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, immunity under the State Immunity Act 1978, and the territorial scope of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997.

Facts

The defendant was King of Spain between 1975 and 2014, when he abdicated the throne. The claimant is an international businesswoman. Both parties have a cosmopolitan lifestyle and maintain homes around the world. The parties agreed that the defendant was domiciled in Spain for the purposes of the proceedings, even though he had been living in Abu Dhabi since August 2020. The claimant is a Danish national with a residence in Monaco and a home in England.

The parties were in an intimate relationship between 2004 and 2009. Their relationship came to public attention in April 2012 in the aftermath of an elephant-hunting trip to Botswana. In June 2012, the defendant paid €65m to the claimant, the purpose of which is a matter of dispute and controversy. Shortly thereafter the defendant allegedly started to harass the claimant. Harassment allegedly continued after the defendant’s abdication.

The facts pleaded by the claimant are complex, but are conveniently summarised at [259]:

the Defendant (a) intimidated and pressured the Claimant over the use of the June 2012 payment, (b) threatened and intimidated her more generally, (c) made allegations of stealing, untrustworthiness and disloyalty with a view to disrupting her relations with friends and family, (d) made similar defamatory statements to her clients and business associates, (e) supplied false information to the media, with a view to publication, relating to her financial probity and alleging she was a threat to the Spanish national interest and/or was trying to blackmail the royal family, and (f) placed her and her advisers under surveillance, trespassed onto and damaged her Shropshire property and intercepted or monitored the mobile and internet accounts of herself and her advisors.

These acts of harassment were alleged to have occurred in different countries, including Austria, the Bahamas, England, Monaco, Saudi Arabia, Spain, Switzerland, Tahiti, United Arab Emirates, and the United States.

It is on the basis of these facts that the claimant brought a claim in England under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 on 16 October 2020, two and a half months before the expiry of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020. This, coupled with the fact that the defendant was domiciled in Spain, meant that Brussels I bis applied.

The defendant’s first line of defence was sovereign immunity. On 6 December 2022, the Court of Appeal held that the defendant enjoyed immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 with respect to the allegations about his pre-abdication, but not post-abdication conduct. This paved the way for the issues that the High Court addressed in its judgment of 6 October 2023.

Submission

Submission is a recognised basis of jurisdiction under Article 26 of Brussels I bis. As a matter of High Court procedure, jurisdictional challenge and submission to jurisdiction are dealt with generally by Civil Procedure Rule 11. CPR 11(4)(a) provides that an application under this rule must be made within 14 days after filing an acknowledgment of service. Otherwise, the defendant is to be treated as having accepted that the court has jurisdiction to try the claim pursuant to CPR 11(5)(b).

The defendant filed an acknowledgment of service on 4 June 2021 and ticked the box ‘I intend to contest jurisdiction’. The claimant argued that the defendant should have disputed the court’s jurisdiction under Brussels I bis within 14 days. Instead, the defendant made a general challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction in his application notice of 18 June 2021 ‘on grounds that England is not the appropriate forum’ and sought ‘to set aside the service on the Defendant out of the jurisdiction, which was improperly effected’. On 21 February 2023, the defendant abandoned his objection to the service of the claim. A specific challenge to the court’s jurisdiction under Brussels I bis was not made until 22 March 2023. This specific challenge was made pursuant to case management directions that followed the Court of Appeal’s judgment on the immunity issue.

The court held that the defendant did not submit on the basis that his jurisdictional challenge was not abusive, that his general challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction of 18 June 2021 was sufficient at that stage, and that extension of time and relief from sanctions should be granted to cure any deemed submission that might have arisen by virtue of CPR 11(5)(b) from the lapse of a month between the abandonment of the service challenge and its replacement by the Brussels I bis challenge.

Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis

The heart of the judgment concerns the interpretation and application of Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis to a harassment claim and is found at [51]-[134]. This part of the judgment deals with four key points: the relationship between an autonomous interpretation of Article 7(2) and the domestic law under which the claim is pleaded; the elements of the tort of harassment under English law; whether the event giving rise to the damage occurred in England; and whether the damage occurred in England.

Relationship between Autonomous Interpretation and Domestic Law

It is undisputed that the concept of the ‘place of the harmful event’ in Article 7(2) requires an autonomous interpretation. But the question arose whether the domestic law under which the claim was pleaded had a role to play in this respect. The court provided a positive answer to this question. It quoted with approval [32]-[33] of the Supreme Court judgment in JSC BTA Bank v Ablyazov:

However, the requirement of an autonomous interpretation does not mean that the component elements of the cause of action in domestic law are irrelevant. On the contrary, they have a vital role in defining the legally relevant conduct and thus identifying the acts which fall to be located… In particular, whether an event is harmful is determined by national law.

This led the court to conclude that, for the purposes of determining whether the event giving rise to the damage occurred in England and whether the damage occurred in England, ‘the relevant “event” and “damage” are determined by English tort law, [which] requires consideration of whether the relevant components of an actionable tort, occurring in England, have been made out’ to the standard of a good arguable case ([63]-[64]).

Elements of the Tort of Harassment

This brought the Protection from Harassment Act 1997, which introduced the tort of harassment into English law, to the spotlight. According to the court, the essence of the tort of harassment is that

it as ‘a persistent and deliberate course of unreasonable and oppressive conduct, targeted at another person, which is calculated to and does cause that person alarm, fear or distress’. The conduct ‘must cross the boundary between that which is unattractive, even unreasonable, and conduct which is oppressive and unacceptable. To cross the border from the regrettable to the objectionable, the gravity of the misconduct must be of an order which would sustain criminal liability’. ([69], referring to [40] of the High Court judgment in Hayden v Dickinson)

Importantly:

a course of conduct is something more than a series of events attributed to the same person. A ‘course of conduct’ is more than the additive sum of its parts. A nexus between the activities complained of is required; a court must assess whether the acts complained of are separate or linked together to form a specific and coherent whole. ([72])

Armed with this insight, the court proceeded to determine whether the event giving rise to the damage occurred in England and whether the damage occurred in England.

Event Giving Rise to the Damage

The parties clearly had a deep and multifaceted relationship that went spectacularly sour. It was also clear that the parties’ relationship, including its most unpleasant aspects and their consequences, spanned multiple jurisdictions. Two issues of relevance concerning the interpretation of the ‘event giving rise to the damage’ limb of Article 7(2), however, were not clear.

The first issue concerns the fact that acts of harassment can be done by a defendant directly or by another person on the defendant’s behalf. The question arose whether the acts of another person acting on the defendant’s behalf in England could amount to an act of the defendant in England for the purposes of Article 7(2). To answer this question, the court relied on the Melzer judgment of the Court of Justice:

I do not, and do not need to, take from this any clear principle that the acts of an agent cannot constitute the acts of a principal for the purposes of the ‘cause’ limb of the jurisdictional test where the agent acts in one jurisdiction on the authority of a principal in another. But I was shown no clear authority for the contrary principle either. And I do take from Melzer at least the thoughts that (a) the BRR concerns itself in principle with the issue of a causal act by one person being attributed to another under national law for the purposes of determining jurisdiction, because that tends against the fundamental principles of certainty, predictability and the proximity of a defendant’s conduct to the courts of another country and (b) great care needs to be taken with appeals to intuition as to the ‘right’ outcome in such matters, when the starting point is the fundamental principle of a defendant’s entitlement to be sued in his place of domicile, subject only to limited exceptions of a predictable nature made in the interests of the effective administration of justice. ([104])

The second issue is whether Article 7(2) required an English course of conduct to confer jurisdiction on the English courts, or whether an international course of conduct with acts of harassment in England sufficed. The court held that the former approach was right:

The jurisdictional test cannot be satisfied by doing no more than identifying a collection of English acts featuring in a pleaded international course of conduct and inviting an inference that they themselves add up to an actionable course of conduct in their own right… The right approach works the other way around. It has to start with the pleaded identification of an English course of conduct and then establish that, through pleaded constituent acts of the Defendant in England. Whether any ‘English subset’ of a pleaded international course of conduct amounts to an actionable tort in its own right must itself be pleaded and evidenced. It cannot be assumed as matter of logic to have that quality: harassment is a distinctively cumulative tort, and pleading a whole course of conduct as harassment does not imply pleading that any subset of it must itself constitute harassment (even though it may). ([106])

The court ultimately held that the claimant failed to identify and evidence a tortious course of conduct by the defendant with the necessary coherence, connectivity, persistence, and gravity constituting harassment that occurred in England.

Damage

The question of whether the relevant damage occurred in England raised related issues. Does Article 7(2) require that the claimant became aware of harassing events and experienced alarm, fear, and distress in England, that the proximate and direct damage occurred in England, or perhaps that something else occurred in England?

The court held that:

The impact of any individual constituent episode of that course of conduct is simply not the legally relevant ‘damage’ as defined by English tort law. Any individual episode need have no particular effect at all – it is the cumulative, oppressive effect of the total course of conduct which is of the essence of the tort. ([109])

In other words, the legally relevant damage is ‘just “being harassed”’ ([111]).

The claimant failed to identify and plead any specific experience of harassment in England. Instead, she pleaded an indivisible, ambulatory, and international experience of being harassed, which was not recognisable as distinctively English. Consequently, no relevant damage occurred in England. The court suggested that had the claimant had an English domicile, habitual residence, or physical presence in England throughout, she might have satisfied the requirements of the ‘damage’ limb of Article 7(2) ([118]).

Immunity

As mentioned, the Court of Appeal held on 6 December 2022 that the defendant enjoyed immunity from the jurisdiction of the English courts under the State Immunity Act 1978 with respect to the allegations about his pre-abdication, but not post-abdication conduct. Before the High Court, the claimant had another go at this by seeking permission to amend her pleadings to include pre-abdication matters on two bases: that these matters concerned the defendant’s motives for his post-abdication course of conduct; and these matters were part of the relevant background. The court refused permission because these matters were covered by immunity.

Extraterritoriality

Finally, the court addressed the issue of territorial scope of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. As is well-known, common law courts apply the presumption against the extraterritorial application of domestic statutes. Since the case contained international elements, the question arose whether it fell outside the territorial scope of the Act.

The court indicated briefly that the Act had territorial limits and that the case fell outside those limits:

It is one thing to say that regard may arguably be had to an extraterritorial ‘act of a defendant’ in an otherwise securely pleaded and evidenced ‘course of conduct’ within the jurisdiction. It may also be right that ultimately…some sort of test of preponderance or ‘significant proportion’ might conceivably evolve to meet the facts of a particular case. But there is no authority at present which comes close to giving any basis for concluding that fully ‘international harassment’ is comprehended within the geographical scope of the Act and I was given no contextual basis for inferring a Parliamentary intention to achieve that as a matter of public policy. ([291])

Comment

This is a complex and rich case and it is impossible to examine it fully within the confines of a blog post that is already too long. I want, nevertheless, to mention three points by way of commentary.

The first point concerns Brexit and the civil law/common law divide in international civil litigation. Civil law jurisdiction rules, epitomised by Brussels I bis, allocate jurisdiction in a rigid way. Jurisdictional bases are limited in number and relatively narrow. Common law jurisdiction rules are flexible, and jurisdictional bases are more numerous and relatively broad. These two approaches to jurisdiction, and how they play out in tort disputes, were recently discussed by the UK Supreme Court in Brownlie 2. Mrs zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn was in a unique position in that she could choose the jurisdictional system under which to bring her claim. By commencing her proceedings in October 2020, she effectively opted for Brussels I bis. Had she waited a few months and commenced her proceedings after the expiry of the Brexit transition period on 31 December 2020, she could have sued the defendant under the common law rules. It is possible that the claim would have passed the tortious jurisdictional gateway, but the forum conveniens doctrine would have presented a significant challenge. That is probably why the claimant chose to sue the defendant under Brussels I bis.

The second point concerns the court’s interpretation and application of Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis. In Shevill, the Court of Justice confirmed that the domestic law under which the claim is pleaded is of relevance for the application of Article 7(2):

The criteria for assessing whether the event in question is harmful and the evidence required of the existence and extent of the harm alleged by the victim of the defamation are not governed by the Convention but by the substantive law determined by the national conflict of laws rules of the court seised, provided that the effectiveness of the Convention is not thereby impaired. ([41])

The court seised on the opportunity created by Shevill to limit the jurisdiction of English courts over harassment claims. Through section 9 of the Defamation Act 2013, Parliament sought to end London’s position as the global libel litigation capital. The High Court judgment in Corinna zu Sayn-Wittgenstein-Sayn v His Majesty Juan Carlos Alfonso Victor Maria De Borbón Y Borbón can be seen as a related development in the field of harassment.

Finally, the third point concerns the choice-of-law aspect of the case. Even though this was a jurisdictional dispute, the court nevertheless opined on the issue of extraterritoriality. It is interesting, however, that the court approached the issue of application of the Protection from Harassment Act 1997 purely as an issue of statutory construction. There was no mention of the possibility that the choice-of-law rules of the Rome II Regulation (which is retained EU law) might have a role to play in this respect. I think that Rome II, at least if it is applied as directly applicable EU law, requires a different approach. The court should have started its analysis by applying the choice-of-law rules of Rome II. If English law applied, the court could have checked whether the case fell within the territorial scope of the Act. If English law did not apply, the court could have checked whether the Act should nevertheless apply on an overriding basis. A further question could then be asked, namely whether Rome II effects in any way the process of statutory construction.

The parties are in a bitter dispute. The claimant is likely to appeal the High Court judgment. The next chapter in this litigation is keenly awaited.

The judgment by the CJEU in Club la Costa (decision of 14 September 2023, Case C-821/21), has already been analysed from a jurisdictional perspective in a previous post. In the same decision, the court also addresses an important issue regarding the applicable law under the Rome I Regulation.

Facts

Remember that a British resident had entered for private purposes into a timeshare contract with a British company (Club La Costa) through the latter’s Spanish branch. This contract concerned tourist accommodation in Spain. Subsequently, the British resident had brought a suit in Spain.

The standard terms of the contract stipulated that it shall be governed by English law. However, Spanish law, as the law of the place of the immovable, was more favourable for the British resident than English law. (In particular, Spanish law requires the contract to be entered into the land registry as well as to specify the accommodation and the precise duration of the time-share, see the parallel decision rendered on a similar contract on the same day in Case C-632/21, JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe et al.)

Legal Issues

In essence, the Spanish court wanted to know whether it could apply Spanish law to the dispute. For this, it had to overcome the choice of law in the contract as well as the consumer protection provisions, which both pointed to English law. If the choice of law was incompatible with Article 3, and Article 6 Rome I did not apply because it was unfavourable to the consumer, the application of Spanish law might have been justified, e.g. under Article 4(1)(c) Rome I (for a discussion whether this provision governs timeshare contracts, see Case C-632/21, JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe et al.).

The Spanish court therefore asked the CJEU (1) whether it would be compatible with Article 3 Rome I to consider a choice-of-law clause in standard terms as valid, (2) whether the business partner could also rely on the consumer protection provision of Article 6 Rome I, and (3) whether it could ignore the law of the consumer’s habitual residence where the law that would normally govern the contract (in the absence of consumer protection) is more favourable to the consumer in the particular case.

The Validity of the Choice of Law in Standard Terms

For the first question, concerning the validity of a choice-of-law clause in a standard contract term, the CJEU could refer to its precedent in VKI v Amazon (Case C-191/15). There, it had held that such a clause is valid only if it does not lead the consumer into error about the continued application of the mandatory rules of the law of its habitual residence.

In the present case, the law of the habitual residence of the consumer was selected in the standard term. Hence, there was no risk of any error of the consumer. The CJEU thus deemed the clause to be valid.

Can Businesses Rely on Consumer Protection and can the Consumer Waive such Protection?

The second and third question were answered together by the CJEU. In this regard, it held that the consumer protection provision of Article 6 Rome I is

not only specific, but also exhaustive, so that the conflict-of-law rules laid down in that article cannot be amended or supplemented by other conflict-of-law rules laid down in that regulation, unless they are expressly referred to in that article” (para 78).

This is an important ruling with potential relevance for many disputes (e.g. it was also applied in the parallel case in Case C-632/21, JF and NS v Diamond Resorts Europe et al.). From a theoretical perspective, this ruling means that the law designated by Article 6 Rome I is an objective conflict-of-laws rule and not merely a unilateral defence by the consumer.

Assessment

This decision has two consequences.

First, the consumer protection provision can also be relied upon by the business party to the contract. This makes a lot of sense. If it were otherwise, the business would have to wait for the consumer to choose her preferred law before it could assess the legal situation.

Second, the ruling means that the consumer cannot waive the protection of Article 6 Rome I. Indeed, this is just the mirror image of the first consequence, because if the consumer could waive the protection, then  it would be impossible for the business to rely on the provision. Therefore, this consequence must be applauded too.

It should be noted, however, that the situation in the law of jurisdiction is different on the latter point. According to the CJEU, the consumer can waive the protection by Article 18(1) Brussels I bis Regulation (see decision in Wurth Automotive, Case C-177/22 and the comment by Marion Ho-Dac). This can be easily explained, though, because already the wording of this provision makes it clear that it benefits exclusively the consumer and that the business cannot rely on this protective head of jurisdiction. It is different with Article 6 Rome I, which determines the law governing consumer contracts objectively, and thus for both parties.

— Thanks to Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld, Felix Krysa and Paul Eichmüller for reviewing this post.

I have already reported that the UK Supreme Court ruled on the meaning of a “matter” in Article II(3) of the 1958 New York Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (NYC) in its judgment of 20 September 2023 in Republic of Mozambique v Privinvest Shipbuilding SAL (Holding) [2023] UKSC 32.

On the very same day, the Privy Council, speaking through Lord Hodge (other judges were Lord Reed (President), Lord Lloyd-Jones, Lord Briggs, and Lord Kitchin), gave a judgment on Article II(3) NYC in FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd v Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation [2023] UKPC 33. This case was decided on appeal from the Court of Appeal of the Cayman Islands.

While there is a degree of overlap between the two judgments, the facts of the two cases are different and FamilyMart raised a broader range of issues.

Facts

A traveller to the Far East can be surprised by the number of convenience stores and the range of goods and services they offer. This case concerns a dispute between FamilyMart China Holding Co Ltd (“FMCH”) and Ting Chuan (Cayman Islands) Holding Corporation (“Ting Chuan”), the shareholders of China CVS (Cayman Islands) Holding Corp (“Company”), a Cayman Islands company that operates some 2,400 convenience stores in China under the “FamilyMart” brand.

The relationship between the shareholders is governed by a shareholders’ agreement, which contains a clause providing that “any and all disputes in connection with or arising out of this Agreement [shall be] submitted for arbitration” in Beijing.

In 2018, FMCH presented a petition in a Cayman Islands court to wind up the Company on the just and equitable ground under the Companies Law (2018 Revision). The petition was based on alleged misconduct by Ting Chuan in connection with the management of the Company. Ting Chuan applied to strike out or stay the petition under section 4 of the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Act, which applies to foreign arbitrations and implements Article II(3) NYC into Cayman Islands law. It provides as follows:

Staying of certain court proceedings — If any party to an arbitration agreement, or any person claiming through or under him, commences any legal proceedings in any court against any other party to the agreement, or any person claiming through or under him, in respect of any matter agreed to be referred, any party to the proceedings may at any time after appearance, and before delivering any pleadings or taking any other steps in the proceedings, apply to the court to stay the proceedings; and the court, unless satisfied that the arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed or that there is not in fact any dispute between the parties with regard to the matter agreed to be referred, shall make an order staying the proceedings.

Kawaley J in the Grand Court struck out a part of the petition and granted a stay of the remainder. The Court of Appeal overturned this decision on the basis that no part of the winding up petition was arbitrable and that, consequently, the arbitration agreement was “inoperative”. The parties agreed that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. The central dispute was whether the FMCH’s petition had made the matters raised in that petition non-arbitrable.

Judgment

To decide the appeal, the UKPC had to rule on the meaning of a “matter” and “inoperative” in section 4 of the Foreign Arbitral Awards Enforcement Act/Article II(3) NYC.

Regarding the first issue, the UKPC essentially set out, albeit in more detail, and relied on the same principles that the UKSC set out and applied in Mozambique. Since I addressed this issue in a previous post, here I want to focus on the second issue, namely the meaning of “inoperative” and the arbitrability of the subject matter and the remedies sought in the court proceedings.

The UKPC stated that there are two broad circumstances in which an arbitration agreement may be inoperative: (1) where certain types of dispute are excluded by statute or public policy from determination by an arbitral tribunal; and (2) where the award of certain remedies is beyond the jurisdiction which the parties can confer through their agreement on an arbitral tribunal. The UKPC referred to the first type as “subject matter non-arbitrability” and to the second as “remedial non-arbitrability” ([70]).

The underlying concept of subject matter non-arbitrability is that there are certain matters which in the public interest should be reserved to the courts or other public tribunals for determination ([72]). For example, by preventing parties by agreement from contracting out of an employee’s right to have access to an employment tribunal and the courts, section 203 of the UK Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 144(1) of the UK Equality Act 2010 preserve a right of access to the courts ([71]). Similarly, a subject matter will be non-arbitrable if “there is an inherent conflict between arbitration and the public policy considerations involved in that particular type of dispute” ([71], referring to [44] of the SGCA case of Larsen]. While there is no agreement internationally as to the kinds of subject matter or dispute which fall within subject matter non-arbitrability ([72]), the court can refer to the jurisprudence of the courts of other common law jurisdictions ([74]).

Remedial non-arbitrability is concerned with the circumstance in which the parties have the power to refer matters to arbitration but cannot confer on the arbitral tribunal the power to give certain remedies. There is a general consensus in the common law world that the power to wind up a company lies within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts ([75]). There is also a general consensus that an arbitral tribunal can grant inter partes remedies, such as ordering a share buy-out in proceedings for relief for unfairly prejudicial conduct in the management of a company under section 994 of the UK Companies Act 2006. This is because no third party has a legal interest and there is no public element in the dispute ([76]).

That is why even in an application to wind up a company there may be matters in dispute, such as allegations of breaches of a shareholders’ agreement or of equitable duties arising out of the parties’ relationship, which can be referred to an arbitral tribunal, notwithstanding that only a court can make a winding up order ([77], [78]).

Following these principles, the UKPC decided that some matters were arbitrable, while others were non-arbitrable. Arbitrable matters were: whether FMCH had lost trust and confidence in Ting Chuan and the management of the Company; and whether the parties’ relationship had irretrievably broken down. A stay was granted and the parties were referred to arbitration in relation to these matters. Non-arbitrable matters were: whether it was just and equitable to wind up the company; whether an order should be made requiring Ting Chuan to sell its shares to FMCH; or whether a winding up order should be made. The parties were not referred to arbitration in relation to these matters. Nevertheless, a stay was ordered because the determination of the arbitrable matters would be an essential precursor to the assessment of the non-arbitrable matters.

Comment

This is an important judgment that offers not only an authoritative interpretation of the concept of a “matter” in Article II(3) NYC (like its sister UKSC judgment in Mozambique) but also of the concept of “inoperative” in this provision.

Importantly, the UKPC clarified the difference between “subject matter non-arbitrability” and “remedial non-arbitrability”. However, the judgment can be criticised on two bases.

First, the efforts of the UKPC to decide the case by reference to comparative law are commendable. Still, the court’s focus on the jurisprudence from the “leading arbitration jurisdictions in the common law world” ([57]; similarly [74], [75], [77]) has a whiff of parochialism. The same criticism can be levelled at the UKSC judgment in Mozambique, which focused on the jurisprudence of the “leading jurisdictions involved in international arbitration in the common law world” ([71] of that judgment).

Second, the court could have gone a step further in its dealing with the concepts of “inoperative” and set out some kind of test for determining whether or not a matter is arbitrable. Provisions like 203 of the UK Employment Rights Act 1996 and section 144(1) of the UK Equality Act 2010 that expressly prohibit contracting out are an exception. When it comes to non-arbitrability for reasons of public policy, one is left to wonder when exactly “there is an inherent conflict between arbitration and the public policy considerations involved in that particular type of dispute” or when there is “no public element in the dispute”. The instruction to the courts to look at “the jurisprudence of the courts of other common law jurisdictions” to answer these questions is not necessarily helpful. Can the courts look at the jurisprudence of the courts of non-common law jurisdictions, which are the majority of NYC jurisdictions and include some very important arbitration centres? Does this instruction even make much sense in a world where the NYC and the UNCITRAL Model Law have done so much to transcend the common law – civil law divide in international commercial arbitration?

In a judgment of 28 June 2023, the French Supreme Court for Private and Criminal Matters (Cour de cassation) ruled that foreign states may rely on their immunity from suit in exequatur proceedings.

As a result, the court confirmed that French courts could dismiss proceedings to declare enforceable a US judgment which had retained jurisdiction over and ruled against Iran on the ground that Iran benefited from an immunity from suit in France.

Background

In Flatow v. the Islamic Republic of Iran et alii (999 F. Supp. 1 (D.D.C. 1999), see also this report of the NY Times), the US District Court for the District of Columbia ordered the Republic of Iran and other Iranian defendants to pay various members of the family of Alisa Flatow over USD 40 Million in compensatory damages and over USD 225 Million in punitive damages.

Alisa Michelle Flatow was a twenty-year-old Brandeis University student. For the 1995 spring semester, she arranged for and participated in an independent foreign study program in Israel.

While in Israel, she communicated with her father (picture), to ask whether she could travel to a community on the Mediterranean Sea with friends. He reviewed their itinerary with her, and as he believed that the Israeli government would not provide civilian passenger bus service unless it were safe to do so and he gave her permission to travel in Gaza.  On April 9, 1995, she took the number 36 Egged bus, which was traveling from Ashkelon, Israel to a Mediterranean resort in the Gush Katif community. At or about 12:05 p.m. local time, near Kfar Darom in the Gaza Strip, a suicide bomber drove a van loaded with explosives into the number 36 Egged bus, causing an explosion that destroyed the bus. Alisa Flatow died at an Israeli hospital the next day.

The Israeli government informed the father of Alisa Flatow that the Shaqaqi faction of Palestine Islamic Jihad had claimed responsibility for the bombing, and that their investigation had confirmed that claim.

In July 1996, the US Department of State’s Coordinator for Counterterrorism informed the father that the Department of State was satisfied that the group which had claimed responsibility for the bombing had in fact perpetrated the bombing, and that the Islamic Republic of Iran provided approximately two million dollars to Palestine Islamic Jihad annually in support of its terrorist activities.

Exception to Immunity from Suit under US Law

In the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996, the US Congress lifted the immunity of foreign states for a certain category of sovereign acts which are repugnant to the United States and the international community. That Act created an exception to the immunity of those foreign states officially designated by the Department of State as terrorist states if the foreign state commits a terrorist act, or provides material support and resources to an individual or entity which commits such an act, which results in the death or personal injury of a United States citizen.

Of note is the fact that an amendment was adopted in 1996 to clarify that punitive damages were available in actions brought under the state sponsored terrorism exception to immunity. This provision of law is commonly referred to as the “Flatow Amendment.” It was applied retroactively by the US court in that case.

The US Court thus ruled that Iran did not benefit from an immunity from suit in this case.

Immunity from Suit in Exequatur Proceedings?

When the Flatows sought to declare the US judgment enforceable in France (it is unclear whether they had limited the scope of their claim to compensatory damages), the issue arose as to whether the issue of the immunity from suit could be raised by Iran in the French proceedings.

The Cour de cassation holds that the issue of immunity from suit is a procedural issue which must be addressed before ruling on whether the foreign judgment meets the requirements for being granted exequatur and thus declared enforceable. The court further rules that the findings of the US Court on the immunity of Iran under US law are irrelevant for that purpose.

The characterisation of the issue as procedural allows, in the particular context of exequatur, to avoid the critique that this might amount to reviewing the foreign judgment on the merits.

The most interesting contribution of the judgment is that Iran could invoke its immunity from suit in exequatur proceedings. The court does not explain why, but there are likely two rationales for it.

The first is that the court has ruled several times that States may not raise their immunity from enforcement to dismiss exequatur proceedings. The reason is, it seems, that exequatur is not enforcement per se, insofar as it does not attach any asset or constrain otherwise the (state) debtor. This is abstractly convincing, but, in practice, the essential reason for seeking exequatur is to allow enforcement of the judgment.

The second reason is likely that exequatur proceedings are judicial proceedings. It can seem only logical, then, to apply the immunity from suit in that context. But the subject matter of the suit is not the liability of the debtor. It is the foreign judgment, which has finally ruled on this issue. Should the foreign State be able to raise an immunity from suit in this context? Also, judgments can produce effects irrespective of exequatur and any judicial proceedings. They can be recognised. The result is that state immunity will block certain effects of the judgment only. Is it satisfactory to prevent certain effects, but allow others?

Maybe the initial decision of the Cour de cassation to exclude exequatur from the scope of immunity from enforcement was based on too abstract considerations.

No Exception under French State Immunity Law

Because it finds that Iran may invoke its immunity from suit, the Court then assesses whether the relevant acts were covered by state immunity.

Unsurprisingly, the Court finds that they were.

The Court starts with the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (citing Al-Adsani and J.C. v. Belgium) and rules that there can be no violation of the right to a fair trial and the right to access to court if the limitation is based on customary international law.

The Court then relies on the case law of the International Court of Justice (Germany v. Italy) and the ruling that, in the present state of customary international law, violations of jus cogens have no direct impact on state immunity.

Finally, the Court recalls that, in any case, it has ruled in 2011 that States which are only morally responsible for violations of jus cogens (i.e. sponsors as opposed to direct perpetrators) could not conceivably lose their immunity (one may add that the ECtHR has also ruled so in J.C. v. Belgium).

Iran could thus invoke its immunity from suit in exequatur proceedings. The exequatur proceedings are declared inadmissible.

On 7 September 2023, the Court of Justice of the European Union ruled in Case C-590/21, Charles Taylor Adjusting that judgements ordering a party to pay certain sums of money for violating a choice of court agreement are ‘quasi anti suit injunctions’ which violate mutual trust. The courts of Member States are therefore free to consider that such judgements violate public policy and to deny them enforcement under the Brussels I Regulation.

Background

On 3 May 2006, the vessel Alexandros T sank and was lost, along with its cargo, off the bay of Port Elizabeth (South Africa). The companies Starlight Shipping Company and Overseas Marine Enterprises Inc. (‘OME’),  the owner and operator of that vessel, respectively  requested that the insurers of that vessel pay an indemnity on the basis of their contractual liability arising from the occurrence of the insured incident.

After the insurers refused, Starlight initiated proceedings before English courts and before an arbitral tribunal. The parties settled all these actions in several Settlement Agreements, which contained a jurisdiction clause designating English courts. The Settlement Agreements were ratified by several English judgments in 2007 and 2008.

A few years later, Starlight and OME initiated tort actions in Greek courts related to the actions settled in England. One of the defendants in the Greek proceedings was Charles Taylor Adjusting Limited, a legal and technical consultancy which had defended the insurers of the vessel Alexandros T against the claims made by Starlight before the English court, and against the director of that consultancy.

While those actions were pending, the insurers of the vessel and their representatives, including, in particular, Charles Taylor and its director, the defendants in the Greek proceedings, brought actions against Starlight and ΟΜΕ before the English courts seeking a declaration that the actions brought in Greece constituted infringements of the settlement agreements and applying for declarative relief and compensation.

In 2014, the English High Court awarded the applicants compensation in respect of the proceedings instituted in Greece as well as payment of their costs incurred in England on the basis of the content of the settlement agreements and of the jurisdiction clause that they contained.

Charles Taylor and its director then sought recognition and partial enforcement of the 2014 English judgement in Greece.

The Piraeus Court of Appeal found that the 2014 English judgement amounted to a quasi anti suit injunction and should thus be denied recognition and enforcement. The Greek Court of Cassation referred the matter to the CJEU.

Judgment

The starting point of the reasoning was obviously Turner and the other judgments of the CJEU which have confirmed that anti-suit injunctions are unacceptable under the EU law of jurisdiction: ‘Any injunction prohibiting a claimant from bringing such an action must be seen as constituting interference with the jurisdiction of the foreign court which, as such, is incompatible with that regulation’.

The key issue was to determine whether other forms of assessment of the jurisdiction of courts of other Member States and sanctions of parties wrongly litigating before the courts of Member States could equally interfere with the jurisdiction of those courts.

The CJEU found that, although it did not order any party to discontinue the foreign proceedings, the English judgment still held:

26. … That judgment and those orders nonetheless contain grounds relating to, first, the breach, by Starlight and OME together with the natural persons representing them, of those settlement agreements; second, the penalties for which they will be liable if they fail to comply with that judgment and those orders; and, third, the jurisdiction of the Greek courts in the light of those settlement agreements. Moreover, that judgment and those orders also contain grounds relating to the financial penalties for which Starlight and OME, together with the natural persons representing them, will be liable, in particular a decision on the provisional award of damages, the amount of which is not final and is predicated on the continuation of the proceedings before the Greek courts.

The CJEU ruled that the 2014 English judgment thus interfered with the jurisdiction of Greek courts, and could thus be classified as a quasi anti suit injunction:

27. … While the purpose of that judgment and those orders is not to prohibit a party from bringing or continuing legal action before a foreign court, they may be regarded as having, at the very least, the effect of deterring Starlight and OME, together with their representatives, from bringing proceedings before the Greek courts or continuing before those courts an action the purpose of which is the same as those actions brought before the courts of the United Kingdom, which matter is, in any event, for the referring court to determine.

The CJEU then discussed whether the prohibition to review foreign judgments under the Brussels Regulation prevented the Greek court from denying enforcement to the 2014 English judgment. The CJEU concludes that the Greek Court could rely on the public policy exception to sanction the infringement to the principle that every court is to rule on its own jurisdiction, that other courts should trust the result, and the principle of access to justice.

Assessment

The rationale for the judgment seems to be twofold. First, the courts of the Member States should not deter litigants from bringing  proceedings before the courts of any other Member State. Second, the courts of the Member States should always refrain from assessing whether the court of other Member States have jurisdiction.

The first reason seems to exclude any interference in proceedings pending before other Member States which could be perceived as exercising pressure on one party to terminate them. It would leave open the possibility to sue after the termination of the proceedings to seek any form of remedy for initiating the foreign proceedings in violation of a choice of court agreement. The second reason, however, would seem to apply even after the foreign proceedings resulted in a judgment.

The broader question is whether it is possible to seek a remedy for abuse of process for seizing wrongly the court of a Member State. For instance, for initiating proceedings in violation of lis pendens. The answer seems to be that such remedy can only be sought in the Member State of the court wrongfully seized, and nowhere else.

Holidays are over and September 2023 will be a busy month at the Court of Justice also as regards private international law, starting with the delivery of the Opinion by AG Emiliou in case C-90/22, Gjensidige, and of two decisions by the third and the fifth chamber respectively (both formations of five judges) already on Thursday 7.

The request for a preliminary ruling in Gjensidige comes from the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Lithuania). In the case at hand, the proceedings in cassation focus on the legal provisions governing the significance of an agreement conferring jurisdiction, entered into by the parties to a contract for international carriage, in the context of determining both the jurisdiction of the court hearing the dispute that arose from that contract and the legal consequences of a breach of the lis pendens rules. The national court is asking the following:

Can Article 71 of Regulation No 1215/2012, having regard to Articles 25, 29 and 31 and recitals 21 and 22 thereof, be interpreted as permitting the application of Article 31 of the CMR Convention also in cases where a dispute falling within the scope of both those legal instruments is the subject of an agreement conferring jurisdiction?

Having regard to the legislature’s intention to strengthen the protection of agreements conferring jurisdiction in the European Union, can Article 45(1)(e)(ii) of Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted more broadly, as covering not only Section 6 of Chapter II of that regulation but also Section 7 thereof?

After assessment of the specific features of the situation and the resulting legal consequences, can the term ‘public policy’ used in Regulation No 1215/2012 be interpreted as covering the ground for deciding not to recognise a judgment of another Member State where the application of a specialised convention, such as the CMR Convention, creates a legal situation in which both the agreement conferring jurisdiction and the agreement on the applicable law are not observed in the same case?

One the same day the Court will hand down its judgement in cases C-590/21, Charles Taylor Adjusting,  and C-832/21 Beverage City Polska.

The request for a preliminary ruling in case C-590/21 was lodged by the Areios Pagos (Court of Cassation, Greece). It concerns the interpretation of Article 34(1) and Article 45(1) of the Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I), in proceedings on the recognition and enforcement by a court of a Member State of judgments issued by a court of another Member State which have the effect of deterring parties, which had brought proceedings before another court of the former Member State, from continuing the proceedings pending before it. The questions referred read:

(1) Is the expression “manifestly contrary to public policy” in the EU and, by extension, to domestic public policy, which constitutes a ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement pursuant to point 1 of Article 34 and Article 45(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to be understood as meaning that it extends beyond explicit anti-suit injunctions prohibiting the commencement and continuation of proceedings before a court of another Member State to judgments or orders delivered by courts of Member States where: (i) they impede or prevent the claimant in obtaining judicial protection by the court of another Member State or from continuing proceedings already commenced before it; and (ii) is that form of interference in the jurisdiction of a court of another Member State to adjudicate a dispute of which it has already been seised, and which it has admitted, compatible with public policy in the EU? In particular, is it contrary to public policy in the EU within the meaning of point 1 of Article 34 and Article 45(1) of Regulation No 44/2001, to recognise and/or declare enforceable a judgment or order of a court of a Member State awarding provisional damages to claimants seeking recognition and a declaration of enforceability in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by them in bringing an action or continuing proceedings before the court of another Member State, where the reasons given are that: (a) it follows from an examination of that action that the case is covered by a settlement duly established and ratified by the court of the Member State delivering the judgment (or order); and (b) the court of the other Member State seised in a fresh action by the party against which the judgment or order was delivered lacks jurisdiction by virtue of a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction?

(2) If the first question is answered in the negative, is point 1 of Article 34 of Regulation No 44/2001, as interpreted by the Court of Justice of the European Union, to be understood as constituting a ground for non-recognition and non-enforcement in Greece of the judgment and orders delivered by a court of another Member State (the United Kingdom), as described under [(1)] above, where they are directly and manifestly contrary to national public policy in accordance with fundamental social and legal perceptions which prevail in Greece and the fundamental provisions of Greek law that lie at the very heart of the right to judicial protection (Articles 8 and 20 of the Greek Constitution, Article 33 of the [Astikos Kodikas (Greek Civil Code)] and the principle of protection of that right that underpins the entire system of Greek procedural law, as laid down in [Article 176, Article 173(1) to (3) and Articles 185, 205 and 191] of the [Kodikas Politikis Dikonomias (Greek Code of Civil Procedure)] cited in paragraph 6 of the statement of reasons) and Article 6(1) of the [European Convention on Human Rights], such that, in that case, it is permissible to disapply the principle of EU law on the free movement of judgments, and is the non-recognition resulting therefrom compatible with the views that assimilate and promote the European perspective?

In his Opinion delivered on 23 March 2023, AG Richard de la Tour proposes propose that the Court of Justice answer as follows:

Article 34(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State can refuse to recognise and enforce a decision on the ground that it is contrary to public policy based on the fact that that decision prevents the continuation of proceedings pending before another court of that Member State, in that it awards to one of the parties provisional damages in respect of the costs and expenses incurred by it in bringing those proceedings, where the reasons given are, first, that the subject matter of those proceedings is covered by a settlement duly established and ratified by the court of the Member State delivering that decision, and, second, that the court of the other Member State before which those proceedings were brought lacks jurisdiction by virtue of a clause conferring exclusive jurisdiction.

It is now for judges K. Jürimäe, M. Safjan, N. Piçarra, N. Jääskinen (as reporting judge) and M. Gavalec to decide.

In case C-832/21, Beverage City Polska, the Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court for Civil and Criminal Matters of Düsseldorf, Germany), made a request for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 8, point 1, of the Brussels I regulation, in relation to Article 122 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 on the European Union trade mark. The main proceedings engaged the owner of a Union trademark, established in the United States, and a distributor and its supplier, respectively domiciled in Germany and Poland, regarding the alleged violation by them of said trademark. The Court of Justice is asked to complete its jurisprudence on the requirements of the special rule established in Article 8, point 1, of Regulation No. 1215/2012, which allows several persons domiciled in different Member States to sue before the courts of the domicile of only one of them, whereas the claims filed before the referring court are directed against several companies and their administrators, against whom the action has been filed not only in their capacity as representatives of such companies, but also in their personal capacity.

AG Richard de la Tour’s Opinion, March 23, 2023 proposes the Court to answer:

Article 8(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 …, read in conjunction with Article 122 of Regulation (EU) 2017/1001 …, must be interpreted as meaning that more than one defendant, domiciled in different Member States, may be sued in the courts for the place where one of them is domiciled that are seised, in the context of infringement proceedings, of claims brought against them by the proprietor of an EU trade mark where the defendants are alleged to have infringed that trade mark in a materially identical manner through each of their acts in a supply chain. It is for the court seised to assess whether there is a risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings, taking into account all the relevant material in the case file.

The decision corresponds to judges E. Regan, D. Gratsias, M. Ilešič (reporting judge), I. Jarukaitis and Z. Csehi.

Three further decisions will be published the following week, i.e. on Thursday 14.

C-632/21, Diamond Resorts Europe e.a., is a Spanish request from the Juzgado de Primera Instancia e Instrucción n.º 2 de Granadilla de Abona on the law applicable to contractual obligations under Regulation No 593/2008 (Rome I) and (to some extent) its predecessor, the 1980 Rome Convention. The succinct presentation  of the facts according to the English summary of the request establishes that an action was brought before the referring Spanish court seeking the annulment of two contracts (of 14 April 2008 and of 28 June 2010) concluded between a UK company and the applicants in the main proceedings, Mr JF and Ms NS, of British nationality. The contracts relate to the purchase of points which enable consumers to use accommodation belonging to the club owned by the defendant in Europe, including Spain. Consumers are not allocated specific accommodation, even for a specified period each year; instead, they are offered a brochure of accommodation and must request availability for each property at a particular time.

These are the questions referred to the Court:

1) Are the 1980 Rome Convention … and Regulation No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations to be construed as applying to contracts in which both parties are United Kingdom nationals?

If the answer to the first question is in the affirmative

2) Is Regulation No 593/2008 to be construed as applying to contracts concluded before its entry into force, pursuant to Article 24 of that regulation? If the answer is no, must a club-points-based timeshare contract be treated as falling within the scope of Articles 4(3) or (5) of the 1980 Rome Convention, including where the consumer has chosen the law of a State other than his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law? Further, if the answer is that such contracts can come under either provision, which set of rules takes priority?

3) Irrespective of the answers to the second question, is a club-points-based timeshare contract to be treated as a contract for the acquisition of rights in rem in immovable property or association-type rights in personam?

– If it is considered that rights in rem are acquired, for the purposes of determining the law applicable, which of Article 4(c) and 6(1) of Regulation No 593/2008 is applicable by way priority, including in the event that the consumer chooses the law of a State other than that of his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law?

– If it is considered that rights in personam are acquired, are those rights to be treated as a tenancy of immovable property, for the purposes of Article 4(c), or as a provision of services, for the purposes of Article 4(b)? Further, and in any event, is Article 6(1) applicable by way of priority in so far as the contract is with a consumer and/or user, including where the consumer chooses the law of a State other than that of his or her State of habitual residence as the applicable law?

4) In all of the above cases, is national legislation which states that ‘all contracts concerning rights relating to the use of one or more immovable properties situated in Spain during a specified or specifiable period of the year are subject to the provisions of this Law, regardless of the place or the date on which such contracts were concluded’ to be interpreted as being compatible with the provisions governing the applicable law laid down in the 1980 Rome Convention and in Regulation No 593/2008?

No Opinion has been asked for. The Court will decide in a chamber of three judges, namely L. Arastey Sahún, F. Biltgen (as reporting judge) and J. Passer.

On the same day, the same chamber will hand down the judgment in case C-821/21, Club La Costa e.a., corresponding again to a Spanish request; no Opinion precedes the decision. Six questions have been referred to the Court on the Brussels I bis and Rome I Regulations:

In relation to Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 …:

1. In the case of consumer contracts to which Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with that regulation to interpret the term ‘the other party to a contract’ used in that provision as encompassing only a person who signed the contract, such that it cannot include natural or legal persons other than those who actually signed the contract?

2. If the term ‘the other party to a contract’ is interpreted as encompassing only a person who actually signed the contract, in situations in which both the consumer and ‘the other party to a contract’ are domiciled outside Spain, is it compatible with Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation to conclude that the international jurisdiction of the Spanish courts cannot be determined by the fact that the group of undertakings to which ‘the other party to a contract’ belongs includes companies that are domiciled in Spain but did not sign the contract or signed different contracts other than that in respect of which a declaration of nullity is sought?

3. If ‘the other party to a contract’, as referred to in Article 18(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, provides evidence that its domicile is established in the United Kingdom in accordance with Article 63(2) of the regulation, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that a domicile so established delimits the option that can be exercised under Article 18(1)? And, in addition to that, is it compatible with that provision to conclude that it does not simply establish a mere ‘presumption of fact’, or that that presumption is overturned if ‘the other party to a contract’ carries on business outside the jurisdiction of its domicile, or that the onus is on ‘the other party to a contract’ to demonstrate that its domicile, as determined in accordance with the provision cited, is the same as the place where it carries on its business?

In relation to Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008:

4. In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 3 of that regulation to conclude that clauses determining the applicable law, which are included in the ‘general conditions’ of the contract signed by the parties or which are included in a separate document which is expressly referred to in the contract and is shown to have been provided to the consumer, are valid and applicable?

5. In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that it can be relied on by a consumer and by the other party to a contract?

6. In the case of consumer contracts to which the Rome I Regulation is applicable, is it compatible with Article 6(1) of that regulation to conclude that, if the conditions laid down therein are satisfied, the law indicated in that provision will in all cases be applied in preference to that indicated in Article 6(3), even though the latter may be more favourable to the consumer in the particular case?

In the main proceedings, Mr NM, a British national domiciled in the United Kingdom, concluded in Spain in 2018 a timeshare contract under Spanish Law 4/2012 of 6 July 2012. Mr NM’s wife, also a British national domiciled in the UK, was a party to the contract as well, as was, through its Spanish branch, the entity Club La Costa (UK) PLC, a British company domiciled in the UK which directs its commercial activities to Spain and other countries, including the UK. The timeshare contract contained a clause according to which it ‘shall be interpreted in accordance with English law and shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the English courts.’ Mr NM brought an action against the other party to the contract, Club La Costa (UK) for a declaration of nullity of that contract before the referring court together with a claim for a refund of payments made PLC. The claim was directed as well against another four companies, three of British nationality and a fourth of Spanish nationality; none of them had participated in the conclusion of the contract at issue in the main proceedings; they had, though, in the conclusion of other contracts in which Club La Costa (UK) PLC was not involved. The disputed issue in the main proceedings is whether the Spanish courts have jurisdiction to hear the claim. It is also necessary to determine what the applicable law is. In this regard, albeit not the subject matter of a question to the Court of Justice, the doubts of the referring court are raised by the fact that under Spanish procedural law, if a foreign law is applicable, the party which invokes that law must confirm the existence and content of that law. Spanish law also lays down rules on the admission of evidence under foreign law.

Finally, the decision by judges L. Arastey Sahún, F. Biltgen (as reporting judge) and J. Passer in case C-393/22, EXTÉRIA, not accompanied by a previous Opinion, will be published on 14 September 2023. Here, the Nejvyšší soud (Supreme Court, Czech Republic) asks the Court in Luxembourg whether Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted ‘as meaning that the concept contract for the provision of services also includes a contract to enter into a future contract (pactum de contrahendo), in which the parties undertook to enter into a future contract that would be a contract for the provision of services, within the meaning of that provision’.

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, a Senior Lecturer at the Stockholm University.

---

By a ruling of 17 May 2023 (No 13504), the Corte Suprema di Cassazione (Italian Supreme Court) held that the Italian courts lacked jurisdiction over an action concerning the non-infringement of an international design right. The decision raises several interesting issues concerning the application of the rules on jurisdiction set out in the Brussels I bis Regulation to infringements of intellectual property rights.

Facts

The German company Bulthaup is the holder of an international design right for a tap valid for inter alia Germany and Italy. Bulthaup sent a warning letter to another German company, Nobilia-Werke, demanding that it cease selling the tap “Alila” claiming that it was a copy of Bulthaup’s design. The Alila tap is manufactured by an Italian company, Gessi. When Gessi learned that Bulthaup had sent a warning letter to its customer, Nobilia-Werke, Gessi wrote to Bulthaup and denied infringement. After communication between Gessi and Bulthaup’s lawyers, Gessi sued Bulthaup and the related company Bulthaup Italia Srl (Bulthaup Italia) before the Tribunale di Milano (Court of Milan). In addition, Nobilia-Werke was made a party to the proceedings.

Gessi requested that the Court of Milan declare that the Italian part of the international design was invalid. In addition, Gessi requested inter alia a declaration that the production and marketing of the Alila tap did not infringe the industrial property rights of Bulthaup and/or Bulthaup Italia and that its and Nobilia-Werke’s activities did not constitute acts of unfair competition. Bulthaup and Bulthaup Italia objected to the Court of Milan’s jurisdiction on the basis that the claims “concern German territory only”, with the exception of the invalidity claim concerning the Italian part of the design. Nobilia-Werke did not contest jurisdiction. The Court of Milan set a hearing to clarify and Gessi appealed to the Supreme Court.

The Supreme Court’s decision

The Supreme Court held that the Court of Milan had jurisdiction over the invalidity claim concerning the Italian part of the design in accordance with Article 24(4) of Brussels I bis Regulation. With regard to the other claims concerning inter alia a declaration of non-infringement of design rights and a declaration of non-violation of unfair competition rules, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Milan did not have jurisdiction.

First, the Supreme Court held that Article 4 of the Brussels I bis Regulation could not provide a basis for jurisdiction because both Bulthaup and Nobilia-Werke were domiciled in Germany, not Italy.

Second, the Supreme Court examined whether Article 7(2) of Brussels I bis Regulation could provide a basis for jurisdiction. With references to the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), the Supreme Court observed that Article 7(2) was applicable to actions for negative declarations and that a plaintiff could sue either at the place of the causal act or the place of (direct) damage. The Supreme Court recalled the CJEU’s decision in Wintersteiger (C‑523/10) holding that in cases of trademark infringement, damage occurs in the Member State where the right is protected. The Supreme Court observed that this ruling was relevant for infringements of design rights. The Court found however that this decision did not provide a basis for jurisdiction because the right at issue was the German part of the international design.

In addition, the Supreme Court rejected Gessi’s assertion that damage occurred in Italy in accordance with the CJEU’s interpretation of Article 7(2) in Bolagsupplysningen (C-194/16).  It can be recalled that the CJEU held that a legal person claiming that its personality rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information on the internet can sue where it has its centre of interests because that is where the damage to its reputation is most keenly felt. The Supreme Court stated that Bolagsupplyningen concerned “a completely different” situation specific to internet, whereas in the case at hand, the damage alleged by Gessi, namely, interference with its contractual relationship with Nobilia-Werke, occurred in Germany. Indeed, the Court explained that damage from a warning letter sent by a German company (Bulthaup) to another German company (Nobilia-Werke) about activity in Germany in alleged violation of a right protected in Germany could only occur in Germany. In addition, the Court rejected Gessi’s assertion that Bulthaup had sent another warning letter addressed to Gessi concerning Gessi’s conduct in Italy. The Supreme Court explained that this so-called warning letter was in fact a letter from Bulthaup’s lawyer in reply to a letter from Gessi’s lawyer concerning a possible settlement. As a lawyer’s letter seeking an amicable settlement could not be a basis for damage, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Milan did not have jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2).

Lastly, the Supreme Court examined whether Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation could provide a basis for jurisdiction in light of the fact that Gessi had also sued Bulthaup Italia, which is domiciled in Italy. Pursuant to Article 8(1), a defendant domiciled in a Member State may be sued, when he or she is one of a number of defendants, in the courts for the place where any one of them is domiciled, provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings.

The Supreme Court recalled the CJEU’s decision in Roche Nederland (C-539/03) that the application of Article 8(1) does not apply to alleged infringements of different parts of a European patent because each part is a separate and independent right which must be assessed under national law so there is no risk for irreconcilable judgments. Thus, the Supreme Court noted that the claim concerning the invalidity of the Italian part of the design was not relevant for establishing jurisdiction over for the claims for non-infringement.

Thereafter, the Supreme Court noted that while Gessi’s action for negative declaratory relief was justified in so far as it related to Bulthaup’s accusation of infringement in Germany of the German part of the design right, the Supreme Court held that jurisdiction could not be fictitiously established by bringing a claim against a “silent” and “disinterested” defendant (Bulthaup Italia). The Supreme Court explained that Bulthaup Italia was not the holder of the design right and had not asserted the right so there was therefore no plausible reason for involving it in the dispute. Consequently, the Supreme Court held that the Court of Milan did not have jurisdiction on the basis of Article 8(1).

Analysis

The Supreme Court’s ruling does not clearly separate the question of jurisdiction from the question of admissibility under national procedural law. As the defendant Bulthaup Italia is domiciled in Italy, it may be sued in Italy for any claim within the scope of the Brussels I bis Regulation except for where there is exclusive jurisdiction. Thus, the Court of Milan should have jurisdiction over Bulthaup Italia in accordance with Article 4 Brussels I bis Regulation in respect of the negative declaratory claims concerning infringement and unfair competition. It is a separate question that these claims are inadmissible under national procedural law because Gessi had no legitimate interest in bringing a claim against Bulthaup Italia.

In addition, while I agree with the Supreme Court that Article 7(2) would not provide a basis for jurisdiction over Bulthaup for the negative declaratory claims concerning Germany, Gessi’s claims appear to refer also to Italy. Indeed, Gessi requests a declaration that “the production and marketing” of the tap does not infringe industrial property rights. The production of the tap, which likely takes place in Italy, concerns the Italian part of the international design. As the Supreme Court rightly noted, in Wintersteiger, the CJEU held that jurisdiction lies in the Member State where the right is protected, and Bulthaup’s right is protected (also) in Italy. Thus, the Court of Milan should have jurisdiction over Bulthaup in accordance with Article 7(2) Brussels I bis Regulation in respect of the claim for non-infringement of the Italian part of the international design. Again, it is a separate question whether this claim is admissible under national procedural law in light of the fact that Bulthaup had not sent any warning letter to Gessi concerning Italy.

Concerning Article 8(1) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, I agree with the Supreme Court that the invalidity claim was not relevant for establishing jurisdiction over the non-infringement claims, but for an additional reason not mentioned by the Court. The invalidity claim was brought against Bulthaup, not Bulthaup Italia. Clearly, Bulthaup cannot be used as an anchor defendant to bring additional claims against Bulthaup.

In contrast, the negative declaratory claims were brought against both Bulthaup and Bulthaup Italia so the latter could serve as an anchor defendant. That said, the Supreme Court’s conclusion that Article 8(1) was not applicable in cases of abuse is arguably in line with Freeport (C‑98/06). In that case, the CJEU held that if the requirements of (what is now) Article 8(1) are fulfilled, there is no further need to establish separately that the claims were not brought with the sole object of ousting the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State where one of the defendants is domiciled. This decision has been understood to mean that the claims are either sufficiently connected or there is abuse. In this case, the Supreme Court found that there was abuse because there was no plausible reason for involving Bulthaup Italia in a dispute concerning the German part of the design right.

As noted above, however, Gessi’s negative declaratory claims appear to concern Italy as well. There would be a plausible reason for involving Bulthaup Italia in a dispute concerning the Italian part of the design right. This raises two issues. First, could Bulthaup Italia be used as an anchor defendant even though the claims against Bulthaup Italia were likely inadmissible under Italian procedural law for lack of a legitimate interest? In Reisch Montage (C‑103/05), the CJEU held that (what is now) Article 8(1) applies even when an action brought against the anchor defendant (here Bulthaup Italia) is inadmissible pursuant to a provision of national law already at the time it is brought.

Second, are the negative declaratory claims against Bulthaup Italia concerning Italy connected to the claims against Bulthaup concerning Germany in the meaning of Article 8(1)? The CJEU’s decision in Roche Nederland which was cited by the Supreme Court, deals with patents. In a later case, Painer (C-145/10), which deals with copyright infringement, the CJEU did not exclude the application of article 8(1) in relation to defendants accused of infringing copyright protected in different Member States when the national laws on which the claims were based were “substantially identical”. In light of the fact that national design rights have been harmonized in accordance with Directive 98/71/EC on the legal protection of designs, the question arises whether the approach in Roche or Painer should be followed.

Should a foreign judgment entail in the requested State the res judicata effect that it has in the country of origin? Or should one rather substitute the foreign procedural effects of the judgment to fit with the law of the country where recognition is sought?

This issue was put to the test for the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in its judgment of 8 June 2023 in the French-English employment law matter BNP Paribas v. TR, C-567/21.

Claiming unfair dismissal, an employee first filed a lawsuit in England. After having been successful there, the employee claimed further compensation for the same dismissal in French courts. According to the CJEU’s judgment, the extent of res judicata under the Brussels I Regulation shall follow the country of origin of the judgment. However, not all national procedural rules can be characterised as res judicata rules with international effect. Only rules concerning the ‘authority and effectiveness’ can have international res judicata effect according to the CJEU’s judgment.

In previous posts for this blog, Fabienne Jault-Seseke has reported on the questions referred to by the CJEU and criticised the opinion of Advocate General Priit Pikamäe. François Mailhé has also written in this blog about a parallel French Cour de Cassation case where questions regarding res judicata were referred to the CJEU. That case (Recamier v. BR, C-707/21) is still pending before the CJEU. As the discussion of res judicata in EU private international law can easily be deepened, the following post will focus on the judgment of the CJEU in the BNP Paribas case only.

Facts

In 1998, the French bank BNP Paribas hired an employee to work for the bank in London. That employment contract was governed by English law. In 2009, the parties entered a new employment contract to regulate the secondment of the employee to Singapore. The new employment contract was governed by French law. After a little more than a year in Singapore, the employee was relocated back to London. The relocation was regulated with an amendment to the French employment contract.

A few years after the return to London, the employee was dismissed for serious misconduct that had taken place during his secondment to Singapore. The dismissal was challenged by the employee, who brought an action in an English court claiming compensation for unfair dismissal. In its judgment, the English court held that the claim was well founded. In the English judgment, it was clear that the employer had taken disciplinary measures based on French law. Under English law, which was agreed to be applied by the parties in the case, those measures were unlawful. Consequently, the bank was ordered to pay a compensatory award of GBP 81,175.

Two months after the English judgment was delivered, the employee initiated new legal proceedings against the bank demanding additional compensation for the same dismissal that the English court had based its judgment on. The new lawsuit was filed in a French labour court. With reference to res judicata due to the English judgment, the French labour court held that the claims were inadmissible. This decision was appealed and the French court of appeal came to a different conclusion. Holding that the claim settled by the English court was limited in scope, the French court of appeal stated that the claims made in France were not precluded on the grounds of res judicata. Even if res judicata generally means that a legally settled matter is precluded and cannot be litigated again, there are different understandings of the concept in different jurisdictions. As the case was brought to the French Supreme Court (Cour de Cassation), the private international law issue of the law applicable to res judicata was referred to the CJEU for a preliminary ruling.

Judgment

First, the CJEU held that the old 2001 Brussels I Regulation (44/2001) was applicable in the case, as the English judgment was given in a legal proceeding instituted before 10 January 2015. According to the transitional provisions in article 66(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (1215/2012), it is that date that is decisive in the application of the two regulations.

As regards judgments delivered in other member states, the main principle of the Brussels I Regulation is that such judgments shall be recognised and enforced in all other member states. However, as the CJEU noted in its judgment, the notion of ‘recognition’ is not defined in the regulation. Recognition of judgments in the EU rests on the principle of mutual trust. Therefore, a judgment from another member state may not be reviewed in substance. With reference to this line of purposive and systematic argumentation, as well as to the fact that the explanatory report from 1979 (the Jenard report) explicitly stated that judgments shall have the ‘authority and effectiveness accorded to them in the State in which they were given’, the CJEU held that it is the law in the country of origin of the judgment that determines the extent of res judicata.

Even if it is the law in the country of origin of the judgment that determines the extent of res judicata, the CJEU noted in its judgment that national procedural rules must be classified (characterised) as res judicata rules for this choice of law rule to be applicable. In the case at hand, the issue was whether an English procedural rule that required the parties to centralise all their claims relating to the same legal relationship to a single procedure was a res judicata rule with an inadmissibility effect for the subsequent French procedure. In its judgment, the CJEU stated that one must – as a legal test of whether a national procedural rule is a res judicata rule – assess whether the national procedural rule ‘concerns the authority and effectiveness’ of the judgment (para. 49). Using this legal test, the CJEU held that the English rule on centralisation of claims served the interest of sound administration of justice rather than being intended to govern the authority and effectiveness of a judgment. Therefore, the English rule was not considered to be a res judicata rule that should have any inadmissibility effect for the subsequent French procedure.

Analysis

By its judgment, the CJEU has confirmed that res judicata follows the law of the country where the judgment was delivered. This is the same principle as delivered already in Hoffman, 145/86. It is not the choice of law rule that is new in the BNP Paribas case, but the characterisation methodology that the CJEU seems to embrace. What is special to characterisation in private international law is that the issue itself contains a choice of law problem.

Traditionally, a legal notion should either follow the law where the issue arose (lex causae) or the law of the forum (lex fori). In setting an autonomous legal test for what national procedural rules can be characterised as res judicata rules, the CJEU has chosen a lex fori approach to the issue of characterisation for determining what aspects of res judicata that follow from the country of origin. Ultimately, this approach will improve foreseeability and harmonisation.

However, until the framework of the notion is known, it may be hard to assess what really is a national procedural rule that has international res judicata effect. Perhaps further guidance will be given already in the forthcoming Recamier case mentioned above.

On 7 March 2023, the Italian Court of Cassation rendered a judgment (No 6723/2023) on the public policy exception as a ground for refusing, pursuant to Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, the recognition and enforcement in Italy of a decision rendered by a Danish Labour Court.

In its judgment, the Court of Cassation addressed (and sometimes dodged) a number of questions concerning the interplay between, on the one hand, the uniform regime of the public policy exception set out by the Brussels I bis Regulation and, on the other hand, Italian procedural law, read in the light of the case law of the CJEU and of the ECtHR.

Facts and Procedure(s)

On 8 December 2017, a Labour Court in Denmark, sitting in a single-judge formation and as a judge of first and last instance, ascertained that a company established in Italy had violated a number of provisions of Danish employment law. Said Italian company had seconded a group of construction workers in Denmark, whose working conditions were regulated by a collective agreement concluded between this company and Danish trade unions.  Subsequently, however, the Italian company breached the obligations stemming therefrom, by omitting to pay salaries, pension insurance contributions, holiday remuneration and other social benefits in accordance with the conditions set by said agreement. Based on these grounds, the Danish Labour Court condemned the company to pay (to the trade unions) a total amount of € 1.900.000,00 ca. This amount was calculated by taking into account the making of budgetary savings unlawfully realized by the company (essentially, by underpaying its workers and omitting to comply with social security obligations) complemented by a 7% increase for deterrence (ca. € 129.000,00). In Danish law, this fine (bod) finds its legal basis in Article 12 of Act. No 106 of 2008.

The Danish trade unions subsequently sought to enforce that judgment in Italy. At this stage, the Italian company filed an application under Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, claiming, inter alia, a breach of the Italian public policy stemming from:

1. an alleged lack of impartiality of the Danish judge, based on the remark that “the majority of the members of the deciding court were designated by one of the trade unions who were parties to the procedure”.
2. the Danish court’s refusal to submit a preliminary reference to the CJEU concerning the interpretation of a number of provisions of (primary and secondary) EU law, deemed relevant for the resolution of the dispute(notably, the freedom to provide services, the principle of non-discrimination based on nationality, Article 12 of the Charter, Article 3 of Directive 96/71/CE and Article 6 of Directive 98/49/CE).
3. the “criminal” nature of the fine (bod) imposed by the Danish Tribunal and/or its non-conformity with the criteria set by the Combined Civil Sections of the Cassation itself for the recognition and enforcement in Italy of punitive damages.

The Italian Court of first instance (Tribunale di Siracusa) refused the recognition and enforcement of the Danish decision, deeming that the sanction inflicted by the Labour Court was indeed criminal in nature, in application of the Engel criteria.

The Court of Appeal of Catania reversed this ruling and granted recognition and enforcement, holding that this sanction aimed at compensating the trade union for a breach of contract, consistently with the ordinary function of civil liability. While the Court of Appeal acknowledged that the 7% increase (bod) might have an inhibiting or repressive purpose, it found it in compliance with the criteria established by the Court of Cassation for the recognition of punitive damage in Italy.

Called by the applicant to assess whether the lower courts had correctly interpreted and applied the law, the Court of Cassation came back to questions 1), 2) and 3), mentioned above.

Unpacking the Cassation’s Ruling

The Cassation’s judgment addresses a number of legal questions, which should be separately assessed.

a. On the Possibility of Raising the Public Policy Exception Ex Officio

This issue was brought to the attention of the Court of Cassation in connection with the alleged lack of impartiality of the Danish judge, who – according to the applicant – had been unilaterally appointed by one of the trade unions who were parties to the dispute (Danish law, it seems, allows the parties to labour disputes to appoint the members of the deciding panel). The fact that the Danish legal order offered no possibility of appealing the decision rendered by this judge constituted, in the applicant’s view, an additional violation of the right to a fair trial, having particular regard to the ‘criminal’ nature of the inflicted sanction

The Court of Appeal had refused to rule on this allegation, deeming that this claim had not been (adequately) substantiated by the applicants in the original application submitted before the court of  first instance. It should therefore be regarded as a new claim raised first the first time on appeal and dismissed as inadmissible. According to the applicant, however, this ground of refusal (contrariety to public policy for the lack of impartiality of the deciding panel) should have been raised ex officio by the first instance judge.

The Court of Cassation briefly considers this line of argument in an obiter, where it acknowledged that this way of reasoning would lead to an additional legal question. It should be determined, in particular, whether the Italian judge

is empowered to raise ex officio a breach of the substantive or procedural public policy of the forum, in application of the domestic procedural rules that usually allow for this possibility (in Italy, Article 112 of the code of civil procedure), or whether, conversely, this ex officio control is precluded by the favor that [the Brussels I Bis] Regulation expresses towards the recognition [of foreign judgments], in that it explicitly requires the party who has an interest in not having that judgment enforced in the forum to take appropriate steps to that end [free translation by the author of this post].

To answer this question, the Court of Cassation would have had to take a stance on the interplay between the uniform procedural regime established (sometimes implicitly) by the Brussels I bis Regulation and the domestic rules of procedure of the forum, as well as on the leeway granted to the latter by the principle of procedural autonomy. Regrettably, the Court of Cassation decided to “dodge” this question. In fact, it continues its reasoning by remarking that: “even admitting that the applicant had properly raised the claim concerning the partiality of the deciding panel at the first instance” (as the company was also alleging), the terms in which this claim was formulated would be too generic and unsubstantiated. This claim was solely grounded in the letter of the Danish law, which allows for the abstract possibility that the trade unions appoint the members of the deciding panel under specific conditions. However, this was not what happened in that concrete case, since the case file evidenced that the judge who issued the contested judgment had been chosen (through a different procedure) among those serving at the Danish Supreme Court. Moreover, it had never been recused by the applicant in the proceedings in the issuing State.

The Court of Cassation also rejected the applicant’s argument whereby the sheer existence of a provision allowing for the appointment of the judicial panel by trade unions who are parties to the dispute could amount to a “structural deficiency” of the Danish legal order. To this end, the Italian Court reminded that the notion of “public policy” under the EU PIL Regulations shall not be construed with reference to purely internal values, but rather according to a broader international perspective. In this vein, the Court of Cassation remarked that many foreign states establish similar systems of judicial appointment and that , in any case,

it is not for the judge called to decide on a cause of non-recognition of a judgment issued by a court of a EU Member State to investigate about systemic deficiencies in legal order of the State of origin (‘structural deficiencies’), in the light of the respect and consideration paid to this State (specifically, Denmark) at the pan-European level.

b. On the Breach of the Obligation to Request a Preliminary Ruling and the Public Policy Exception

This issue was solved in a rather straightforward manner by the Court of Cassation. The applicant claimed that, as the judge of first and last resort, the Danish court should have referred a preliminary question to the CJEU, since the interpretation of a number of provisions of EU law was, in his view, essential for the resolution of the dispute. The non-respect of the obligation established by the CILFIT case law would then result in legal impossibility of recognizing and enforcing the ensuing foreign judgment, this being contrary to the public policy of the requested State.

The Court of Cassation evoked, in this respect, the case law of both the ECtHR and the CJUE. In Ullens dr Schooten, the former held that a national court’s refusal to grant the applicants’ requests to refer to the Court of Justice preliminary questions on the interpretation of EU law, that they had submitted in the course of the proceedings, does not violate Article 6 of the ECHR if this refusal has been duly reasoned. In Consorzio Italian Management, the CJEU specified that

if a national court or tribunal against whose decisions there is no judicial remedy under national law takes the view… that it is relieved of its obligation to make a reference to the Court under the third paragraph of Article 267 TFEU, the statement of reasons for its decision must show either that the question of EU law raised is irrelevant for the resolution of the dispute, or that the interpretation of the EU law provision concerned is based on the Court’s case-law or, in the absence of such case-law, that the interpretation of EU law was so obvious to the national court or tribunal of last instance as to leave no scope for any reasonable doubt (§ 51).

Against this backdrop, the Court of Cassation deemed that the Danish Court had sufficiently explained the reasons behind its refusal to refer a preliminary question to Luxembourg. It also added that this assessment should be made solely on the basis of the reasoning developed in the judgment whose recognition is sought: any further assessment on this point, extending to the correctness of the interpretation given to the Danish provisions and their application to the facts of the case, would amount to a review on the merits, explicitly forbidden under the Brussels regime.

c. On the Allegedly Criminal Nature of the Danish Fine (Bod)

Concerning the disputed nature of the fine inflicted with the judgment whose recognition was sought, the Court of Cassation aligned with the view expressed by the Court of Appeal. It noted that, in the Danish legal order, the bod is characterized as a financial penalty (sanzione pecuniaria) belonging to the toolbox of civil liability. It can be inflicted solely for breaches of collective work agreements and pursues a double objective: on the one hand, strengthening the binding effects of these contracts (whose purpose would be defeated if, in case of non-compliance, the compensation granted by the court was limited to the damage effectively suffered by the trade union) and, on the other hand, fighting social dumping. The Cassation therefore recognizes that the bod combines the functions typically vested in civil liability with a deterrent effect typical of criminal law, aiming at the preservation of the general welfare. However, this “duality of functions” of the bod cannot, as such, serve as a basis to qualify this financial penalty as a criminal sanction.

For the purposes of a correct characterization of a fine as being “criminal” in nature, the Court of Cassation pointed to the judgment No. 43 of 2017 of the Italian Constitutional Court, which in turn refers to the Engel criteria. Accordingly, a fine may be recognized as being criminal in nature – even despite a different explicit characterization in positive law – if (a) it affects the population at large; (2) pursues aims that are not merely reparatory, but also punitive and preventative; (3) has punitive character, its consequences being able to reach a significant level of severity (§ 3.3).

Assessed from this standpoint, the Court of Cassation concluded that the Danish bod could not be regarded as being criminal in nature. Its (partially) “punitive” function should rather be ascribed to the system of civil liability.

In Italy, the recognition of foreign (civil) judgments awarding punitive damages is regulated by a ruling of the Combined Sections of the Court of Cassation of 2017 (No. 16601). Therein, that Court admitted, for the first time, that punitive damages could be compatible with Italian public policy under specific conditions: (1) they shall comply, first and foremost, with the principle of legality and the principle that there must be a legal basis, pursuant to which conduct giving rise to the imposition of punitive damages must be defined beforehand in legislation; (2) secondly, and relatedly, punitive damages damages shall be foreseeable; and (3) their amount should not be disproportionate, ie grossly excessive in nature. Having regard to these criteria, the Cassation concluded that the Danish bod could be recognized in Italy, given that: it found a sufficiently specific legal basis in Danish law (ie in the provisions of Act. No 106 of 2008); the application of these provisions was adequately foreseeable, also as concerns the determination of the amount of the fine, given that Danish courts have issued specific guidelines for these purposes; the damage awarded for “punitive purposes” was not grossly disproportionate in relation to the amount of the prejudice effectively suffered by the trade unions and their members (7% thereof).

Based on these arguments, the Court of Cassation finally gave the green-light to the recognition and enforcement of the Danish judgment in Italy, thus rejecting the claimant’s application under Articles 45 and 46 of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

June 2023 begins at the Court of Justice with the decision in case C-567/21, BNP Parisbas, which will be read on 8 June. The request from the Social Chamber of the Cour de Cassation (France) had been lodged on September 15, 2021. It concerns the interpretation of Regulation 44/2001. The national court referred the following questions:

1. Must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters 1 be interpreted as meaning that, where the legislation of the Member State of origin of the judgment confers on that judgment authority such as to preclude a new action being brought by the same parties for determining the claims that could have been raised in the initial proceedings, the effects which that judgment has in the Member State in which enforcement is sought preclude a court of that latter State, whose legislation, as applicable ratione temporis, provided in employment law for a similar obligation of concentration of claims, from adjudicating on such claims?

2. If the first question is answered in the negative, must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an action such as a claim of unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom has the same cause of action and the same subject matter as an action such as a claim of dismissal without actual and serious cause in French law, so that the employee’s claims for damages for dismissal without actual and serious cause, compensation in lieu of notice, and compensation for dismissal before the French courts are inadmissible after the employee has obtained a decision in the United Kingdom declaring that there has been an unfair dismissal and making a compensatory award in that respect? Is it necessary in that regard to distinguish between, on the one hand, the damages for dismissal without actual and serious cause that might have the same cause of action and the same subject matter as the compensatory award and, on the other, the compensation for dismissal and compensation in lieu of notice which, in French law, are payable where the dismissal is based on an actual and serious cause, but are not payable in the event of dismissal based on serious misconduct?

3. Likewise, must Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation No 44/2001 be interpreted as meaning that an action such as a claim of unfair dismissal in the United Kingdom and an action for payment of bonuses or allowances provided for in the contract of employment have the same cause of action and the same subject matter when those actions are based on the same contractual relationship between the parties?

Advocate General P. Pikamäe had delivered his opinion on 16 February 2023. As of today, no official English translation is available. My own one reads:

1. Articles 33 and 36 of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters should be interpreted in the sense that the recognition of a court decision rendered in a Member State, the law of which provides for a rule of concentration of claims prohibiting the same parties from initiating a new action relating to claims which could have been made at the initial instance, does not preclude the court of that second State ruling on such claims, even in circumstances where the law of the Member State in which recognition is invoked provides for a similar obligation of concentration of claims.

2. Articles 33 and 36 of Regulation 44/2001 should be interpreted as meaning that, in the event that the recognition of a decision given in a first Member State is invoked incidentally before a court of a second Member State, claims based on the same employment contract relating to some of the obligations arising from the execution of this contract, and claims based on the obligations arising from the breach of this contract have the same cause but do not have the same object.

A comment by Fabienne Jault-Seseke appeared on this blog.

The case was allocated to the Third Chamber, presided by K. Jürimäe; N. Jääskinen was reporting judge.

On 22 June, Advocate General J. Richard de la Tour will publish his opinion on case C-497/22, Roompot Service. The request comes from the Landgericht Düsseldorf (Germany), and was lodged on 22 July 2022. In a nutshell, the question relates to the relevant criteria to be taken into consideration in order to classify a contract relating to the transfer of short-term use of a bungalow in a holiday park as a lease contract within the meaning of Article 24(1), first sentence, of Regulation 1215/2012, or as a contract relating to the provision of services.

Must the first sentence of Article 24(1) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 be interpreted as meaning that a contract which is concluded between a private individual and a commercial lessor of holiday homes in relation to the short-term letting of a bungalow in a holiday park operated by the lessor, and which provides for cleaning at the end of the stay and the provision of bed linen as further services in addition to the mere letting of the bungalow, is subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State in which the rented property is situated, irrespective of whether the holiday bungalow is owned by the lessor or by a third party?

The Fourth Chamber will decide, with C. Lycourgos presiding and O. Spineau-Matei reporting.

On the same day, a hearing is taking place on case C-339/22, BSH Hausgeräte. The request for a preliminary ruling has been sent by the Svea hovrätt, Patent- och marknadsöverdomstolen (Sweden), and lodged on May 24th, 2022. It comprises three questions on Regulation 1215/2012:

1. Is Article 24(4) of Regulation (EU) 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that the expression ‘proceedings concerned with the registration or validity of patents … irrespective of whether the issue is raised by way of an action or as a defence’ implies that a national court, which, pursuant to Article 4(1) of that regulation, has declared that it has jurisdiction to hear a patent infringement dispute, no longer has jurisdiction to consider the issue of infringement if a defence is raised that alleges that the patent at issue is invalid, or is the provision to be interpreted as meaning that the national court only lacks jurisdiction to hear the defence of invalidity?

2. Is the answer to Question 1 affected by whether national law contains provisions, similar to those laid down in the second subparagraph of Paragraph 61 of the Patentlagen (Patents Law; ‘the Patentlagen’), which means that, for a defence of invalidity raised in an infringement case to be heard, the defendant must bring a separate action for a declaration of invalidity?

3. Is Article 24(4) of the Brussels I Regulation to be interpreted as being applicable to a court of a third country, that is to say, in the present case, as also conferring exclusive jurisdiction on a court in Turkey in respect of the part of the European patent which has been validated there?

In the case at hand, the parties to the main proceedings litigate on a European patent relating to a vacuum cleaner, validated in Austria, Germany, Spain, France, the United Kingdom, Greece, Italy, the Netherlands, Sweden and Turkey. BSH brought an action for infringement of this patent against Electrolux before a Swedish court, who raised an objection of invalidity of the patents in question. The court of first instance has dismissed BSH’s action on the basis of Article 24(4) read together with Article 27 of the Brussles I bis Regulation, insofar as it concerned patents validated in States other than Sweden – with the added element that one of them is a third State. BSH appealed to the referring court.

The case has been allocated to the Fourth Chamber (C. Lycourgos presiding, O. Spineanu-Matei reporting). An opinion will be delivered in due time by Advocate General N. Emiliou.

The author of this post is Lydia Lundstedt, Senior Lecturer at the Stockholm University.

---

Under Swedish copyright law, broadcasting organizations are granted certain exclusive rights over their broadcasts (“signal right”). A signal right is one of the “related” or “neighboring” rights to copyright along with the rights of performers and producers of phonograms. Pursuant to Section 48 of the Swedish Act (1960:729) on Copyright in Literary and Artistic Works (Swedish Copyright Act) broadcasting organizations have an exclusive right to inter alia authorize the rebroadcast or a communication to the public in places accessible to the public against the payment of an entrance fee. This section incorporates Sweden’s obligations under Article 8(3) of the EU Rental and Lending Directive 2006/115/EC.

As a general rule, the Swedish Copyright Act applies in relation to other countries only on condition of reciprocity, or if it follows from an international treaty. Article 6(1) of the 1961 International Convention for the Protection of Performers, Producers of Phonograms and Broadcasting Organizations (Rome Convention) requires that Sweden grant national treatment to foreign broadcasting organizations if (1) they are established in another contracting State; or (2) if the broadcast was transmitted from a transmitter situated in another contracting State. This treaty obligation is incorporated into Section 12 of the Swedish International Copyright Regulation (1994:193) (International Copyright Regulation). The second point of attachment is formulated slightly differently in the International Copyright Regulation. It refers to “broadcasts which have been made” but does not include the words “from a transmitter situated”.

In a case before the Swedish courts, the question arose of the interpretation of this point of attachment when a satellite broadcasting chain of transmission spans several States. On 12 May 2023, the Swedish Supreme Court held that a satellite broadcast should normally be considered to take place in the state where the transmission of the programme-carrying signals was initiated.

Facts

Two persons, acting in their capacity as representatives for a company established in Sweden, were prosecuted for intentionally or through gross negligence, retransmitting television broadcasts produced by another company established in Qatar. The Swedish company had retransmitted via IPTV the Qatari company’s broadcasts to its own customers all over the world without obtaining the Qatari company’s consent. The Qatari company brought a civil claim for damages in connection with the prosecution. A prerequisite for finding the two persons guilty of the offense of unlawful retransmission and liable for damages was that the Qatari company’s broadcasts were eligible for protection under Swedish law.

It is important to distinguish the question whether the Qatari company was eligible for protection under Swedish law, which deals with the rights of foreigners, from the traditional private international law question concerning the applicable law. In this case, the applicable law question did not arise. First, nationals courts only apply their own criminal law so it is clear that Swedish law applies in a Swedish criminal proceeding. Second, with respect to the Qatari company’s claim for damages, which it a private law question, the Qatari company claimed protection for Sweden so Swedish law was applicable under Article 8(1) Regulation (EC) No 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II). As said, however, the application of Swedish law was never questioned. Instead, the question was whether the Qatari company was eligible for protection under Swedish law.

Qatar was not a contracting state to the Rome Convention at the time that the broadcasts took place. Although the Qatari company produced its television programmes in Qatar, it sent the programme signals via fibre cable to a related company in France and then to the United Kingdom and Spain. Via uplink stations in the United Kingdom and Spain, the signals were sent to satellites to be received by the public in the Middle East and Northern Africa.

The Swedish Patent and Market Court (PMD) found that the Qatari company’s broadcasts were made “at least” in the United Kingdom and Spain, which are both contracting states to the Rome Convention. On appeal, however, the Patent and Market Court of Appeal (PMÖD) reversed and held that the broadcast took place only in Qatar. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the PMÖD.

Swedish Supreme Court

Article 3(f) of the Rome Convention defines broadcasting as “the transmission by wireless means for public reception of sounds or of images and sounds”. Although the Rome Convention was drafted before the time of satellite broadcasts, the Court stated that such broadcasts could nonetheless be considered to fall under its scope.

The Court then observed that section 61 a of the Copyright Act deals specifically with satellite broadcasting and localizes the “copyright relevant act” “in the country where the broadcasting organization, under its control and its responsibility, introduces the subject matter into an uninterrupted chain of communication to the satellite and from there down towards the earth.” Section 61 a implements Article 1(2)(b) of the EU Directive 93/83/EEC on the coordination of certain rules concerning copyright and rights related to copyright applicable to satellite broadcasting and cable retransmission (SatCab Directive). The Court noted that the aim of this rule is to enable a broadcasting company that uses other people’s protected subject matters, to easily identify for which Member State it needs to obtain a license. The Court pointed out that the application of this rule presupposes that the subject matter (e.g. a broadcast) is protected under the Copyright Act. The Court therefore observed that this rule “had no immediate significance for the assessment of whether the broadcast as such is protected by that Act”.

The Court observed that neither Article 6 of the Rome Convention nor section 12 of the International Copyright Regulation contain specific provisions on where a broadcast is deemed to take place when the chain of transmission spans several different states. The Court noted however that “in a related context”, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) held that customary technical activities to prepare signals for their introduction into a satellite communication uplink cannot be regarded as interruptions in the transmission in the meaning of Article 1(2) of the SatCab Directive (see Airfield and Canal Digitaal (C-431/09 and C-432/09).

The Court found that this approach was consistent with the text of the Rome Convention and the International Copyright Regulation. The Court stated therefore that in the case of a broadcast involving several intermediate technical steps, the broadcast “was transmitted” (within the meaning of the Rome Convention) and “was made” (within the meaning of the International Copyright Regulation) in the state where the transmission of the signals was initiated. The Court added that the fact that the chain of transmission includes elements which, individually, are not covered by the rules of the Rome Convention, e.g. because the signals at one stage are not transmitted by wireless means, does not preclude such a reading of the provisions.

The Court also found that this interpretation was in line with the aim of protecting broadcasting organizations against the unauthorized exploitation of their broadcasts. The Court reasoned that broadcasting companies make their primary investments in the state from which the broadcast is initially generated and using the state of uplink or where other intermediate technical steps are taken would not satisfy this aim to the same extent.

Thus, the Court held that the entire chain of transmission starting with the transmission of the signals via fibre cable from Qatar and ending with their reception on the ground to subscribers was one single broadcast which must be regarded as having been made in Qatar. This meant that the Qatari company was not eligible for protection under Swedish law and the prosecution against the two individuals for a violation of the Copyright Act and the Qatari company’s damage claim were rejected.

Analysis

It is a bit surprising that the Court first states that section 61 a of the Swedish Copyright Act and the SatCab Directive “had no immediate significance” for the question of whether a broadcast is eligible for protection but then applies the approach set out in the SatCab Directive to determine whether a broadcast is eligible for protection. It can be questioned whether the situation regulated in the SatCab Directive really can be said to be “a related context” as the SatCab Directive regulates a different situation than the Rome Convention and the International Copyright Regulation.

As noted above, the SatCab Directive deals with cross-border licensing of protected subject matter and Article 1(2)(b) localizes where a user is said to exploit another person’s protected subject matter when the subject matter is transmitted to a satellite from one Member State but received by the public on the ground in several other Member States. In contrast, Article 6 of the Rome Convention and the corresponding provision in the International Copyright Regulation deal with the protection of foreign broadcasters and lay down the conditions for affording national treatment to their signals.

Moreover, the SatCab Directive has a different aim than the Rome Convention and the International Copyright Regulation. The SatCab Diective aims to promote pan-European broadcasting by localizing the copyright relevant act in a single Member State while at the same time requiring a minimum level of harmonization to ensure that the protection level is sufficiently high in all Member States. This facilitates cross-border licensing because users of protected subject matters only need to clear the rights in one Member State as opposed to all Member States where the subject matters can be received. In line with this aim of avoiding the cumulative application of several national laws to one single act of broadcasting, normal technical procedures relating to the programme-carrying signals are not to be considered as interruptions to the chain of broadcasting (see recital 14 SatCab Directive).

In contrast, as the Court itself notes, the aim of the Rome Convention is to protect broadcasting organizations against the unauthorized exploitation of their broadcasts. To fulfil this aim, the Rome Convention contains alternative points of attachment (i.e. the broadcaster’s state of establishment or the state where a transmitter that transmits the broadcast is situated). It would be consistent with the aim of the Rome Convention to localize a broadcast in all states with which the broadcast has a significant connection such as a transmitter, or in a cascade-like fashion stopping at the first contracting state that has a significant connection to the broadcast.

It can be noted that the Court did not seem to place any emphasis on the wording “from a transmitter situated in another Contracting State” that appears in the Rome Convention, although not in the International Copyright Regulation. Normally, this point of attachment allows a broadcasting organization that is established outside a Rome contracting state to enjoy protection if its transmitter is situated in a contracting state. While a contracting state may declare that they will apply both points of attachment cumulatively, Sweden has not done so. Still, the practical effect of the ruling seems to require this as it is likely that signals will usually be initiated from the state where the broadcaster is established.

One can make an analogy with the Berne Convention that allows authors who are not nationals of a contracting state to the Berne Union to be eligible for protection under the Convention by publishing their works first in a contracting state to the Berne Union, or simultaneously in a state outside the Berne Union and in a state of the Berne Union. That said, one might view the right of foreign broadcasters in their signals as less deserving of protection than the right of authors in their works. Moreover, non-contracting states would not have any incentive to join the Rome Convention if their broadcasters could secure protection by sending their signal through contracting states.

A question could be raised whether the Court should have referred a question to the CJEU on the interpretation of the Rental and Lending Directive. As noted above, section 48 of the Swedish Copyright Act fulfills Sweden’s obligation under the Rental and Lending Directive to afford broadcasting organizations the exclusive right to authorize or prohibit the communication to the public of their broadcasts against payment of an entrance fee. While the Directive itself does not define who is considered to be a broadcasting organization eligible for protection under the Directive, the concept should be interpreted consistently with the EU’s international treaty obligations. See Recorded Artists Actors Performers (C-265/19). In this case, however, the relevant obligation was under the Rome Convention and the EU is not itself a contracting party.

Article 3 of the TRIPS Agreement, which is an international convention concluded by the EU, obligates the EU to accord national treatment to the nationals of other Members in respect of the rights provided under the Agreement. Article 14.3 TRIPS provides broadcasting organizations a signal right, albeit to a more limited extent than the Rome Convention. Importantly, Article 1.3 of TRIPS incorporates the criteria for eligibility for protection in the Rome Convention to determine who is eligible for protection under TRIPS. Thus, the question concerning the interpretation of Article 6 of the Rome Convention arguably falls indirectly within the CJEU’s adjudicative competence, notwithstanding that the EU is not itself a contracting party, when the right claimed is one that implements Article 14.3 TRIPS. This is because the CJEU may need to interpret the rules in Article 6 of the Rome Convention to establish the EU and its Member States’ obligations under TRIPS. Thus, it is possible that the CJEU will have the opportunity in the future to have its say about where a satellite broadcasting chain of transmission that spans several different states takes place for the purpose of determining its eligibility for protection under TRIPS.

This post was authored by François Mailhé, who is Professor of Private Law at the University of Picardie Jules Verne.

---

At last !

It has been more than 10 years since the French Cour de cassation decided to declare war on asymmetric forum selection clauses in the Banque de Rothschild case (Cass. fr. civ. 1, 26 September 2012, No. 11-26.022). In the span of those 10 years, no less than 7 judgments were rendered by the Cour de cassation itself. And if it found its rationale in 2015 (Cass. fr. civ. 1, 25 March 2015, No. 13-27.264, ICH), almost each new judgment tested and tried a different angle, a different legal basis. At last, two weeks ago, the Cour de cassation chose the path of wisdom and referred a prejudicial question to the European Court of Justice (Cass. fr. civ. 1, 13 April 2023, No. 22-12.965)! 

Once upon a Time: The Brussels Convention

Let’s remember the surprise most felt at reading the Banque de Rothschild decision in 2012. Even if some French court of appeal decisions in maritime cases had already excluded the clause as “potestative” in the 1990s, paragraph 3 of Article 17 of the Brussels Convention seemed to set them aside as a marginal and wrong stream of cases.

Why “potestative”? Because those clauses characteristically consist of two limbs : one, restrictive, pointing in general to only one court and which binds one party, another, liberal, offering the other party a much vaster choice of forum.

The Brussels convention used to hold a specific rule on such clauses, implicitly accepting such imbalance (Article 17, §3 : “If an agreement conferring jurisdiction was concluded for the benefit of only one of the parties, that party shall retain the right to bring proceedings in any other court which has jurisdiction by virtue of this Convention”), but its existence and the reasons of its disappearance from the texts (uselessness, as it seems…) was progressively forgotten by French courts, who became suspicious of such clauses.

From Potestative to Imbalance

This suspicion grew at the same time as the generalization of the “significant imbalance” test. Starting in consumer law, it later appeared in French business law (today at L. 442-6, I, 2° of the French Commercial Code) and last as a general norm of contractual law for standard form contracts (art. 1171 of the Civil Code). The same concern for imbalance in asymmetric forum selection clauses was clear when the Banque de Rothschild decision set one aside as “potestative” (i.e. to the sole power of one of the parties, a much criticized legal ground) but also later, when the ICH case changed the standard from potestativity to foreseeability, as the Cour expressly refer to imbalance as the justification for this new standard.  

The second difficulty is of source: where to find the normative support of this solution? The Cour has used several bases, some of which are taken from European case law, but none of which is very solid (see e.g. Cass. 1re civ., 3 October 2018, No. 17-21.309. I discussed that in Lexisnexis’ JCP G 2018, 1300: among other things, in my opinion, the ECJ never really required selected forums to be foreseeable as a condition of their validity). 

This difficulty has been deepened by Brussels I bis regulation, introducing a specific rule for such clauses substantial validity: “unless the agreement is null and void as to its substantive validity under the law of that Member State” as stated by Article 25.

From this very debatable French case-law were therefore born three interesting questions.  

The author of this post is Verena Wodniansky-Wildenfeld, University of Vienna.

---

Since the introduction of the Rome II Regulation, the question whether rules of conduct of non-governmental organisations are to be taken into account in the context of Article 17 of that Regulation has been the subject of extensive discussion.

A recent decision of the Austrian Supreme Court dealt with the impact of the FIS Rules, which are drawn up by the international ski federation (FIS) and contain guidelines to assist in the promotion of skiing and snowboarding (I.1. FIS rules), with regard to Article 17 Rome II. The court held that the FIS Rules can generally fall within the “rules of safety and conduct” defined in Article 17 Rome II. However, this is only the case if the rules at the place of the event causing the damage are not identical to the rules of safety and conduct of the applicable law. Further examination was therefore not necessary, as the FIS rules are used to determine the duty of care in both states: the state where the harmful act was committed and the state of the applicable law. Nevertheless, the ruling contributes to provide clarity on the interpretation of “rules of safety and conduct” and enrich the case law on Article 17 Rome II.

Facts of the case

The case at hand concerned the collision of two skiers domiciled in the Netherlands in an Austrian ski resort. Prior to the accident, the plaintiff was on the slope above the defendant when the defendant crossed the plaintiff’s lane without turning to see if any skiers are coming from above. In the following crash, both parties were injured.

Judgment

The Austrian Supreme Court first found the application of Dutch substantive law under Article 4(2) Rome II to be undebated. Article 4(2) Rome II provides an exception to the law of the place where the damage occurred, as appointed in Article 4(1) Rome II, in favour of the law of the common habitual residence of the person claimed to be liable and the person sustaining the damage. As the place where the damage occurred and the place where the harmful act was committed normally coincide in skiing accidents, the issue of the FIS rules as foreign rules of safety and conduct arises mainly in cases governed by Article 4(2) Rome II.

The further examination was therefore limited to the assessment of the FIS Rules, as the defendant’s conduct could have constituted a breach of Rule 1. According to this rule every skier must behave in a way not to endanger or harm others. The Court holds that the question whether the conduct in question results in liability is governed exclusively by the lex causae determined in Article 4(2), and thus by Austrian law. However, the court confirms the FIS Rules can be taken into account as a rule of conduct and standard of due care. As both Austrian and Dutch law measure the conduct of skiers against the FIS Rules, the latter are in any case taken into account by the application of Dutch law. Thus, no conduct rules foreign to the applicable law needed to be taken into account and their consideration under Article 17 Rome II was superfluous.

Assessment

Although ultimately the “rules of safety and conduct” at the place of the harmful event were not taken into account, the Supreme Court thus seems to have clarified that for the required standard of care, also norms established by non-state organisations are to be considered under Article 17 Rome II.

While mandatory rules, e.g. of formalised and customary law, distinguishing legal from illegal conduct, are evidently encompassed by Article 17 Rome II, it is debated whether purely private safety and conduct rules can also be considered as “rules” in the understanding of Article 17 Rome II. “Soft law”, such as the FIS Rules of Conduct, is the most prominent example of such standards.

The question of the relevance of the FIS rules to cross-border situations in the context of Rome II has been addressed by other courts before. In a similar case, the Higher Regional Court Munich had assumed that the FIS Rules were to be taken into account as customary law at the place of the harmful event (Austria). However, according to Austrian case law, the FIS Rules cannot be considered customary law in Austria. Moreover, in Austria as in the Netherlands, the FIS Rules of Conduct were never legally codified or given legal force in the form of a decree. The situation, however, differs in European countries. In Italy, for example, the conduct on the ski slopes is prescribed by special law through the third section of the law on safety in skiing (Law No. 363 of 24 December 2003). Also, in Slovenia the obligatory conduct of skiers is regulated by special law (Act No. 110/2002 of 18 December 2002).

There is also controversy in literature as to what significance rules of non-state actors have within the framework of Article 17 Rome II. The key question is whether Article 17 Rome II requires a binding nature of the rule or whether purely factual obedience of rules set by private actors is sufficient.  According to the “local data theory”, a very broad approach is to be taken. As even state law is only taken into account as a matter of fact, a differentiation between the legally or factually binding nature between statutory law and “soft law” created by non-state organizations cannot be justified (Calliess/Renner/v. Hein Art 17, para. 19; Dicey/Morris/Collins CoL 34-069).

A second theory seeks to distinguish between two aspects: The question whether and to what extent non-legal standards of conduct are relevant for the liability shall be assessed exclusively in accordance with the lex causae. Insofar as the lex cause takes recourse to soft law when determining liability, the standards of conduct at the place of the event giving rise to the liability must then be taken into account on a second level (BeckOGK/Maultzsch Art 17 Rn 21; NK-BGB/Lehmann Art 17 para 34).

A third theory considers it neither possible nor necessary for the FIS Rules to be taken into account under private international law per se. Nevertheless, on the level of substantive law, they can serve as an interpretative aid for the liability if the national tort law system provides a general clause for the assessment of the conduct of the tortfeasor (Diehl IPRax 2018, 374)

With the present decision, the Austrian court has not explicitly taken a position on the controversy raised in the literature. Up until now it seemed that the Supreme Court would follow the second theory. In a purely domestic decision, the Supreme Court stated that under Austrian Civil Law, considerable importance to the FIS rules is to be attributed, but only “in applying the general principle that everyone must behave in such a way as not to endanger others.” However, the fact that the Supreme Court does not mention the Dutch sweeping clause and recourse to soft law when determining liability, which would be a necessary precondition for the applicability of the FIS Rules under the second theory, seems contradictory to this approach. The reference in the case at hand to the FIS Rules for assessing the duty of care with regard to Article 17 Rome II without further explanation is therefore rather surprising. For the final act of the ongoing debate, a decision of the CJEU will nevertheless have to be awaited. In any way, whether the FIS Rules are considered under Dutch Law cannot, contrary to the Supreme Court’s judgment, matter in their application under Article 17 Rome II. 

On 6 December 2022, the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) ruled in the Danish surrogacy case of K.K. and Others v. Denmark.

In a 4–3 judgment, the ECtHR held that Denmark violated the rights enshrined in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR), as claimed by  two children born through a commercial surrogacy arrangement in Ukraine, by not recognizing their intended Danish mother as a legal parent. However, the three dissenting judges held that there was no violation of Article 8 in the circumstances. According to the minority, a State must be able to have a policy opposing commercial surrogacy arrangements. They emphasized that Denmark recognized the legal relationship between the father and the children.

Facts

In December 2013, twins were born by a surrogate mother in Ukraine after a commercial arrangement. Ukrainian authorities issued birth certificates for the children. In the birth certificates, a Danish wife and husband were registered as mother and father. Upon their return to Denmark, the Danish authorities refused to recognize the Danish woman named in the birth certificate as a legal parent under Danish law, as she had not given birth to the children. The father was recognized, as he indeed was the biological father of the children. Due to their family connection to the father, the twins obtained Danish citizenship.

The woman continued her struggle with the Danish authorities to become registered as mother of the twins. Shortly after the refusal to recognize her as a mother, she was granted joint custody of the children together with the father. To become a legal parent, she applied for adoption of the children as a step-mother. That application was processed in different Danish authorities and court procedures for more than six years. Eventually, the Danish Supreme Court held that adoption would be contrary to Section 15 of the Danish Adoption Act as the Ukrainian surrogate mother had received remuneration.

The woman and the father filed an application to the ECtHR, claiming that their rights to a family life under article 8 of the ECHR had been violated.

Judgment

The ECtHR found, with smallest possible majority, that Denmark had violated the family rights of the two children who were also applicants in the case. In its judgment, the ECtHR referred to the principles primarily set out in the landmark judgments Mennesson and Paradiso and Campanelli. Those principles, which were effectively summarized in the ECtHR’s 2019 advisory opinion, can be said to indicate that article 8 of the ECHR, read in the light of the principle of “the best interests of the child,” protects the rights of children produced through surrogacy. Non-recognition of a parent-child relationship is therefore a violation of the children’s article 8 rights. Following those principles, the ECtHR held that Denmark did not violate article 8 in relation to the woman by not recognizing a legal parent-child relationship. However, the children’s rights under article 8 were violated by not having their relationship to the intended mother recognized. In its conclusion, the court stressed that it was in the best interests of the children to have the legal relationship recognized.

Dissenting Opinions

It is noteworthy that the judgment was a close call for the applicants. Only four of seven judges voted for the judgment. In stark contrast to the majority, the remaining three judges’ joint dissenting opinion was that Denmark had not violated any ECHR rights at all. Emphasizing that there is no consensus within the member states of the Council of Europe on the sensitive matter of commercial surrogacy, the dissenters initially held that there must be a margin of appreciation for states to strike a balance between private and public interests or convention rights. According to the minority, the judgment “practically eliminate[s] altogether, in substance, the margin of appreciation” for foreign commercial surrogacy arrangements. The minority also questioned the majority’s application of the principle of the best interests of the child. In the judgment, it is held that the best interests of the children are “paramount”. For its part, the dissenting opinion states that the best interests of the children shall be a “primary consideration” which is the standard set out in international law.

Analysis

It is illustrative of the split opinions that the judgment only gathered the narrowest possible majority. For states opposed to commercial surrogacy arrangements, there seems to be very few tools in the toolbox. On the other hand, it is clear how hughly the best interests of the child are valued. For the time being, it seems hard to bridge the differing values underlying the judgment’s majority opinion and the dissenting minority opinion, respectively.

This post was written by Gilles Cuniberti and Anna Wysocka-Bar.

---

On 26 January 2023, the European Commission has launched an infringement procedure against Poland for violation of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

The EAPIL Blog has learnt about the details of one of the cases which has triggered this procedure. It is described below.

Background

The case is concerned with a girl born in 2013 from a British father residing in England, and a Polish mother. The child has been living with her mother in Poland since 2017.

First English Return Order

In 2017, an English family court issued an order of return of the child to England and Wales.

The English court found that the child was habitually resident in England in 2017, and that her removal to Poland was wrongful.

Polish Dismissal of Return Order

The father applied in Poland for a return order based on the 1980 Hague Convention.

The application was allowed in first instance, but dismissed by a Polish regional court in June 2018, on the ground that there was a defence under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.

Although the EAPIL Blog could not read this decision, it seems that the mother of the child was blaming the father of a child for being aggressive towards her and seeking revenge instead of being truly interested in the happiness and wellbeing of the child. The religion of the father of the child was also discussed, as the mother suggested that he hates Catholics. The mother alleged that she was also afraid that the father might discriminate against the child only because she is a girl. The mother also alleged that the father of the child has a family and a wife in another country. With respect to the child, the mother also alleged that she is surrounded by love in Poland, is in a very close relationship with her grandparents and is perfectly adapted in the society. The mother argued that the child never misses her father and never asks about him. Hence, the mother concluded, the return to the father to the UK would have a devastating effect on the child.

Second English Return Order

Later in 2018, the Polish mother then wrote an email to the English court that she would not bring the child back to England notwithstanding the 2017 return order.

The father then applied to the English family court for a return order of the child to England and Wales into the care of her father in accordance with Article 11(8) of the Brussels II bis Regulation.

The court noted that the mother had failed to abide to the 2017 return order, and had written to the court that she would not.

The court ruled that given the age and immaturity of the child, it was inappropriate to hear her.

The court then ruled that it was satisfied that the mother was properly served, by email, by post by the Polish lawyer of the father, and by the Polish court itself, in accordance with the EU Service Regulation.

The court noted that the mother worked as an English interpreter and as a English teacher in Poland, and thus did not need an interpreter in the English proceedings, that she had not required in any case.

Finally, the court noted that the mother was offered the possibility to be heard and participate in the English proceedings by telephone.

The return order was issued in October 2018 and was supplemented with a certificate on the form provided in the Annex IV of Brussels II bis Regulation.

Non-Recognition of the English Return Order in Poland 

In February 2019, pursuant to Article 42 of the Brussels II bis Regulation, the Polish local court obtained, through the Polish Ministry of Justice, the application from the father for the enforcement of the English child return order.

Then, the local court in March 2020 refused the enforcement basing its decision on (interestingly) Article 23 of the Brussels I bis Regulation. Later, the court of the second instance, to which the father of the child filed an appeal, upheld the decision on non-enforcement of the English return order. The reasons provided by both courts are numerous and might be categorized as follows.

First, the court explained that the mother of the child has not participated in the UK proceeding and was not duly informed about it. Even though, the UK court asked Poland for the correspondence to be served on the mother through legal aid procedure, the documents were not duly served. The documents were served to the mother’s attorney-at-law, whose power of attorney was already revoked on the date of service. Even if theoretically – the lawyer would have a mandate to receive a correspondence addressed to the mother of the child, the time between the service and the issuance of the UK return order was too short to prepare for the defense. Consequently, neither the mother, nor the child were heard during the UK proceeding.

Secondly, the principle of the best interest of the child was raised. The court explained that the child had no contact with the father since 2017. The child lives in Poland with the mother, takes violin lessons and horseback riding classes in Poland, started primary education in Poland, has family and friends in Poland. The child should not be abruptly taken from such environment. The child is now rooted in Poland and has the center of life interests in Poland.

Thirdly, other, not explained in detail, arguments were raised. The court underlined that the ongoing pandemic should also be considered, however without stating what is exactly the influence of the pandemic on its decision. The court submitted that the English return order does not indicate the deadline by which the child should be returned to the UK. Also, the fact of Brexit was contemplated. The court stated that it is not sure whether English courts are still correctly applying the Brussels II bis Regulation after the Brexit referendum, and any doubts to that respect should be interpreted to the benefit of the citizens of the EU Member States (presumably, the mother of the child in this case).

Assessment

It seems that the problematic stage of the proceedings is what happened in Poland after the English return order delivered in accordance with Article 11(8) of the Brussels II bis Regulation and supplemented with the certificate from Annex IV of the Brussels II bis Regulation was transferred to the local court in Poland in order to be enforced.

As explained by the Court of Justice of the EU in Inga Rinau (C-195/08 PPU), the enforceability of a judgment requiring the return of a child following a judgment of non‑return enjoys procedural autonomy. It means that once the certificate has been issued, the judgment requiring the return of a child referred to in Article 40(1)(b) is to be recognised and enforceable in another Member State without the need for a declaration of enforceability and without any possibility of opposing its recognition (see: para. 68, Inga Rinau).  Hence, opposition to the recognition of the decision ordering return is not permitted and it is for the requested court only to declare the enforceability of the certified decision and to allow the immediate return of the child (see: para. 89, Inga Rinau).

In this case, the Polish courts of two instances were analyzing the procedure before English court, the current situation of the child, the influence of the pandemic and Brexit to conclude that the English return order should not be enforced. No such review is admissible under the Brussels II bis Regulation.

We cannot help but pick up the argument that English courts might have lost their competence in EU law after Brexit. Are Polish judges fully aware that the EU was not established in 2004, and that, at that time, English courts had already been applying EU law for almost 20 years?

It might be easier to understand how the factual background of the case fits into the provisions of Brussels II bis Regulation making use of the schema included in the EU Practice Guide for the Application of Brussels II bis Regulation below.

Freezing orders, i.e., orders that prevent a person from disposing of their assets pending a determination as to the existence of a claim, are governed by procedural rules that vary greatly from one legal system to another.

English courts, and more generally the courts of common law jurisdictions, may grant orders that can prove remarkably powerful in practice.

Unlike the freezing injunctions that civil law courts are normally permitted to issue, which operate in rem, English freezing orders are in personam measures. They are not given in respect of one or more assets designated for this purpose,  but rather address the person of the (alleged) debtor. The latter will found themselves in contempt of court, and face the relevant penalties (which may include imprisonment, in some circumstances), if they ignore or breach the order.

How Well Do Freezing Injunctions Travel Abroad?

Injunctions granted in common law countries may aim to prevent the person concerned from disposing of any of their assets, mo matter whether those assets are located in the forum State. The issue arises then of whether a “worldwide” freezing injunction may be given effect in a State other than the State of origin, notably a State whose law ignores in personam precautionary orders.

The enforceability of a foreign worldwide freezing injunction can only be at issue, in reality, where and to the extent to which the law of the State where the assets are located includes interim measures among the foreign decisions that are eligible, in principle, for recognition and enforcement.

Domestic rules on the recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions mostly exclude interim measures from their scope, but some internationally uniform texts provide otherwise, subject to appropriate safeguards. That is the case, in particular, of the Brussels I bis Regulation, pursuant to Article 2(a), which applies to provisional measures originating in a Member State of the Union.

The markedly different approach to freezing orders followed by civil law and common law jurisdictions, respectively, involves that injunctions emanating from a common law country could be denied (recognition and) enforcement in a civil law country on grounds of public policy. Secondly, where a common law injunction is not prevented as such from having effect in a civil law State, the issue may arise of whether, and how, the measure should undergo some adaptation (as the term is understood in Article 54 of the Brussels I bis Regulation) in the State requested, at the stage of enforcement.

The View or the Italian Supreme Court’s on the Issue

A ruling of the Italian Supreme Court (order No 25064, of 16 September 2021) provides an illustration of the kind of concerns that may surround the first of the two issues above (the second issue will not be discussed here).

The Case in a Nutshell

The Supreme Court’s ruling, in reality, only deals with the issue in an indirect way. The question, in fact, was not whether a foreign freezing injunction qualified for enforcement in Italy, but rather whether a foreign judgment on the merits ought to be denied recognition on the ground that, in the course of the proceedings leading to that judgment, a freezing injunction had been granted against the party that eventually lost the case.

By a judgment of 2011, the Royal Court of Guernsey awarded damages to Credit Suisse Trust Ltd for the negligent performance by N.G. and others of their obligations under a contract for professional services (it is worth noting that during the period when the United Kingdom was a Member State of the European Union, Guernsey was neither a Member State nor an Associate Member of the Union; some EU law provisions applied to Guernsey and in Guernsey, but these did not include legislation on judicial cooperation in civil matters, such as the Brussels I Regulation).

Credit Suisse Trust filed an application with the Court of Appeal of Rome to have the judgment enforced in Italy. The Court, however, dismissed the request on the ground that the judgment failed to meet the requirements for recognition set out in Article 64(b) and (g) of the Italian Statute on Private International Law. Article 64(b) provides that a foreign judgment may not be recognized in Italy if the act instituting the proceedings was not served upon the defendant in conformity with the law of the State of origin and if the basic rights of defence (“i diritti essenziali della difesa”) were violated in the proceedings in that State. Article 64(g), for its part, stipulates that a foreign judgment may not be given effect in Italy if doing so would contravene public policy.

The Court of Appeal came to this conclusion based on the fact that, on 26 January 2011, upon a request by Credit Suisse Trust, the Royal Court of Guernsey had granted a freezing order which restrained N.G. from dealing with his assets, whether located in Guernsey or anywhere else in the world, under penalty of contempt of court. The order belonged to the kind of interim measures that English courts used to refer to as Mareva injunctions.

The measure in question, the Court of Appeal noted, was an in personam freezing injunction, whereas, under Italian law, a freezing order cannot operate otherwise than in rem, meaning that it necessarily refers to one or more particular assets, specified in the order itself.

Additionally, the Court of Appeal noted that the Guernsey Court had ordered that the respondent disclose his most valuable assets, and do so within days, again under penalty of contempt, whereas Italian law courts are generally not permitted to impose a duty of disclosure of this kind, let alone one requiring such a prompt reaction, in connection with an asset preservation order. According to the Court of Appeal, the Royal Court of Guernsey had, by granting a freezing injunction with the described characteristics, undermined the ability of N.G. to present his case, and had significantly limited N.G.’s right to deal with his assets.

The result, the Court of Appeal found, was all the more objectionable since the orders of the Royal Court of Guernsey apparently failed to put any burden on the other party in the proceedings and its assets. In the view of the Court of Appeal, all this substantiated a violation of the principle of the equality of arms, as well as of the principle whereby all parties should be given an opportunity to effectively present their case, which implies the right to adequate time and facilities to prepare a defence.

Credit Suisse Trust sought to have the ruling of the Court of Appeal quashed by the Italian Supreme Court. The move proved successful.

The Supreme Court’s Ruling

The Corte di Cassazione held that the fact that the order was of a kind unknown to Italian law does not entail, as such, that the proceedings were unfair, let alone that the resulting judgment should be barred from recognition. The public policy defence, taken in its procedural limb, can only succeed, the Supreme Court reasoned, where it clearly appears that the proceedings before the court of origin were tainted by a serious violation of basic procedural rights.

Thus, a judgment on the substance of the case may not be refused recognition on grounds of public policy for reasons relating to an interim measure given in the course of the proceedings in the State of origin, unless it is established that, by granting such a measure, the court of origin violated the procedural rights of the party concerned in such a fundamental way as to undermine the fairness of the whole proceedings. The Corte di Cassazione, however, found no evidence of such a violation in the circumstances. In fact, the Court considered that the freezing order and the disclosure order came with appropriate safeguards and concluded that the Guernsey judgment fulfilled the conditions for recognition in Italy.

The Supreme Court reached this conclusion based on an analysis of the concerns underlying the common law and the Italian law approach to freezing injunctions.

The Court began by observing that Interim measures, specifically those aimed at preserving assets, are an essential component of all domestic legal systems. They are not meant, as such, to discriminate the alleged debtor vis-à-vis the requesting party. The goal of interim measures is rather to ensure the effectiveness of the decision that the court is ultimately asked to render and avert such risks as may be associated with the time needed to bring the proceedings on the substance to an end.

While the goal pursued is basically common to all legal systems, each jurisdiction surrounds interim measures with the safeguards that it considers appropriate. One should not give a decisive weight to the diversity of these safeguards, the Supreme Court argued, insofar as they all ensure the equality of the parties’ arms.

One key question, then, is whether, in the State of origin, the person affected by the order had been granted “arms” which enabled him to react to the “arms” of the other party. In the case at hand, the Supreme Court noted, the Royal Court of Guernsey had retained the power to revoke and modify the measure upon a request by the alleged debtor, and had the power to require the applicant to enter into such undertakings on such terms as may be specified, notably to compensate such prejudice as the freezing order may cause to the other party. Significantly, the Supreme Court added, a failure to comply with such an undertaking may result in the applicant, too, being in contempt of court, in the same way as the respondent in the event of a failure to observe the freezing or the disclosure orders.

The Supreme Court further observed that the fact that the Guernsey orders involved the threat of harsh penalties in case of non-compliance does not entail that the granting of the measures in question necessarily involve a violation of procedural public policy.

The Court acknowledged that indirect coercive measures raise some delicate issues. It noted, however, that recourse to coercive measures to promote compliance with a court order is not alien to the Italian legal system: Article 388 of the Italian criminal code, for example, makes it a criminal offense to deliberately evade from an order given in court proceedings, and Article 127 of the Italian code on intellectual property goes as far as to criminalize any failure to answer (or any false information in response to) the questions that a court may ask where seized of proceedings relating to counterfeiting and other infringements of intellectual property rights. According to the Supreme Court, this is an indication that the mere fact that the provision of penalties, in common law jurisdictions, for the non-compliance of freezing orders is not in itself a reason to regard such orders as inconsistent with Italian public policy.

A more detailed analysis of the ruling (in English) can be found in a comment which appeared on the open-access journal Italian Review of International and Comparative Law, published by Brill.

— A follow-up to this post, by Stefano Ferrero, was published on this blog on 17 March 2o23, under the title “Further Remarks on the Enforceability of Worldwide Freezing Orders in Italy”.