Archive for category: Developments in PIL

What is ‘habitual residence’ for the purposes of the EU regulations on family matters (succession included)? The questions, coupled with the one on how many habitual residences a person may have for the same purposes, is a known source of headaches for the national courts. In the last months, several requests for a preliminary ruling on the issue have been filed with the CJEU originating from different Member States, as if the judges had got into an agreement to ‘corner’ the Court in Luxembourg to try and
get once and for all (?) a helpful answer.

In the E.E. case (C-80/19, judgment of 16 July 2020), the Lietuvos Aukščiausiasis Teismas (Supreme Court of Lithuania) asked the CJEU whether, for the purposes of Regulation No 650/2012 (the Succession Regulation), the habitual residence of the deceased can only be one or, on the contrary, a number of places of habitual residence in different States would be admissible. The referring court acknowledged the former to be the likely correct answer, but added ‘that position is not, however, expressly prescribed and there is [therefore] a need for greater clarity and explanation from the Court of Justice in that context’. It was indeed correct. Like the AG, the CJEU elaborated on how to the ‘one and only’ deceased’s habitual residence is to be determined, finding support in the recitals of the Regulation. The decision is reported and commented by Carlos Santaló in this blog.

Some days before the E.E. decision, on 30 June 2020, a request on the meaning of ‘habitual residence’ was lodged (C-289/20, IB), this time in relation to Regulation No 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis) . The question, from the Paris Court of Appeal, reads as follows: ‘Where, as in the present case, it is apparent from the factual circumstances that one of the spouses divides his time between two Member States, is it permissible to conclude, in accordance with and for the purposes of the application of Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003, that he or she is habitually resident in two Member States, such that, if the conditions listed in that article are met in two Member States, the courts of those two States have equal jurisdiction to rule on the divorce?’

The request is not yet available at curia.eu in a language other than French. A short summary would be that the spouses have different views on whether France is the habitual residence of IB (the husband); much of the discussion revolves around his intention to reside there. In this regard, IB explains that he has been carrying out his professional activities in France since 2010 and in a stable and sustainable manner since 15 May 2017; that he moved to Paris, in an apartment belonging to his father; that he leads a social life there, and that it is his wife’s refusal to come and live in France, although she stays there regularly, in the Parisian apartment or in a vacation home acquired in 2017, which led them to lead a parallel daily life. The wife (FA) replies that it was never agreed or envisaged that the family would settle in France; the family’s habitual residence was in Ireland, where the children were brought up; the husband never changed his residence in Ireland but only the address of his place of work. FA argues that the fact that IB has worked and received his income in France for more than six months is insufficient to characterize his habitual residence within the meaning of Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003, whereas he has continued to come to Ireland, to the family home, until the end of 2018; he continued to lead the same life there; he previously lived there and he consulted a lawyer in Ireland when the spouses considered, from September 2018, to divorce.

On 15 September 15 2020, the Audiencia Provincial (Court of Appeal) of Barcelona sent a request for a preliminary reference to the CJEU, also on the notion of ‘habitual residence’ of adults in Regulation No 2201/2003; the request is nonetheless broader, encompassing as well the Maintenance Regulation, and further aspects of both EU instruments. The Spanish order was reported in Prof. José Carlos Fernández Rozas’s blog on 25 September 2020, with a link to the official document in Spanish. I found it of big interest and have summarized the factual situation and the questions in English for the EAPIL, while waiting for the case to be given a file number and properly translated.

The litigants were married on 25 August 2010 at the Spanish Embassy in Guinea Bissau (Africa); the wife is a Spanish national, while the husband has Portuguese nationality. Their children have both Spanish and Portuguese nationality. The family resided in Guinea-Bissau from August 2010 until February 2015; they moved then to the Republic of Togo. They separated de facto in July 2018. Mother and children continue to reside in the matrimonial home; the husband moved to a bungalow, in the same country.

Both spouses work for the European Commission at the Delegation in Togo, as contractual agents. According to the evidence submitted contractual agents are granted diplomatic status in the country of destination, whereas in the EU Member States they are considered as EU officials only (NoA: this point seems to be nonetheless contested).

On 6 March 2019, the legal representative of the wife lodged an application for divorce with the Spanish courts. She asked as well for the dissolution of the matrimonial property regime, for the adoption of measures regarding the custody of the children, for maintenance for the children, and for the exclusive use of the family home in Togo. The Spanish Court of First Instance dismissed the application for divorce on the basis of lack of jurisdiction.

The wife appealed against the order before the Audiencia Provincial in Barcelona. The following questions (freely translated by myself) are now before the CJEU:

1)          How should the concept of ‘habitual residence’ in Article 3 of Regulation No 2201/2003 and on Article 3 of Regulation 4/2009 (the Maintenance Regulation) be interpreted in relation to nationals of Member States who remain in a third State by reason of the functions they are entrusted with as contractual agents of the EU, and who, in that third State, are accorded the status of diplomatic agents of the EU due to the fact that their presence there is linked to the exercise of the functions they perform for the Union?

2)          Is the determination of the habitual residence of the minor children of the couple under Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003 affected in any way where, for the purposes of Article 3 of Regulation No 2001/2003 and Article 3 of Regulation No 4/2009, the determination of the spouses’ habitual residence is dependent on their status as contractual agents of the European Union in a third State?

3)          Should the minor children be deemed not to have their habitual residence in the third State, can account be taken of the link between the nationality of the mother, her residence in Spain prior to the celebration of the marriage, the Spanish nationality of the minor children and their birth in Spain for the purposes of determining habitual residence under Article 8 of Regulation No 2201/2003?

4)          If it is established that neither the habitual residence of the parents nor that of the children is in a Member State, and given that under Regulation No 2201/2003 no other Member State would be competent to settle the claims, does the fact that the defendant is a national of a Member State preclude the application of the residual rules of jurisdiction under Articles 7 and 14 of Regulation No 2201/2003?

5)          Should it be established that neither the habitual residence of the parents nor that of the minors is in a Member State, for the purposes of determining the maintenance of the children, how is the forum necessitatis rule of Article 7 of Regulation No 4/2009 to be interpreted and, in particular, which elements are needed to establish that proceedings cannot reasonably be filed or carried out in a third country with which the dispute has a close relationship (in this case, Togo)? Is it compulsory, on the other hand, to demonstrate that an attempt at bringing proceedings in that State has been made, with a negative outcome? Moreover, would the nationality of any of the litigants be considered a ‘sufficient connection’ to the Member State (for the purposes of Article 7 of the Maintenance Regulation)?

6)          In a situation like the one at stake, where the spouses have strong ties with Member States (nationality, former residence) would it be contrary to Article 47 of the European Charter of Fundamental Rights to conclude, in application of the rules of the Regulations, that no Member States has jurisdiction to adjudicate?

Clearly the CJEU has a chance to elaborate; good that the national authorities keep on asking.

The author of this post is Lorenzo Acconciamessa, a PhD candidate at the University of Palermo and a teaching assistant at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan.

By an order of 29 April 2020 the First Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court asked the Italian Constitutional Court to review the constitutional legitimacy of the combined operation of the various Italian rules of private international law governing the (non-)recognition of a foreign birth certificate attesting the existence of a parent-child relationship between a child born abroad by resorting to gestational surrogacy and his intended parent. In 2019, the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court ruled that, on a proper interpretation of the Italian provisions of private international, such recognition ought to be denied on the ground that it would offend public policy. Put shortly, by its order of April 2020, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court asked the Constitutional Court to assess whether the above provisions, as interpreted by the Joint Chambers in the ruling of 2019, are consistent with the Italian Constitution.

One of the key issues that the Constitutional Court will need to address is whether, and to what extent, international human rights law – notably as expressed in the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and the UN 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC) – affects the ability of State’s authorities to refuse the recognition of personal statuses and family relationships on grounds of public policy, thereby precluding the cross-border continuity of the concerned persons’ family status validly and effectively created abroad. Indeed, pursuant to Article 117, paragraph 1, of the Italian Constitution, legislation cannot infringe the international obligations of Italy. In this regard, the Constitutional Court made clear that in the event of a conflict between a piece of domestic legislation and the obligations arising from an international treaty in force for Italy, the former must be considered to be unconstitutional and accordingly declared void.

The Facts

The case concerned a same-sex couple of Italian men who got married in Canada. Their marriage was recognised in Italy as a registered partnership, pursuant to Article 32-bis of the Italian Statute on Private International Law. They subsequently had a child in Canada by resorting to surrogate motherhood. Surrogacy is permitted in Canada, provided that the surrogate mother acts freely and altruistically. The child’s birth certificate had been recognised and recorded in Italy following a decision of the Registrar of the Municipality of Verona. However, the certificate merely mentioned the spouse having a biological bond with the child. The couple seised the Supreme Court of British Columbia to have the birth certificate rectified: they wished that both – the biological and the intended fathers – be referred to as the parents of the child. Their application was successful. The couple then requested that such rectification be recognised in Italy. The Registrar, however, dismissed the request, arguing that recognition would be at variance with the Italian public policy.

Determining the Extent of Public Policy: The Joint Chambers’ Approach

On several occasions, in the past, the Italian Supreme Court restricted public policy to such fundamental values as are shared by the international community. On those grounds, the First Chamber ruled in 2016 that the public policy defence could not be raised to prevent the recognition of a foreign birth certificate attesting the family relationship between a child and his two mothers (the biological one, who carried on the pregnancy, and the genetical one, who had donated the ovum). Public policy, the Court argued, encompasses fundamental principles enshrined in the Italian Constitution as well as in supranational and international human rights instruments by which Italy is bound. The best interests of the child, and his right to personal and social identity, are then to be considered as public policy principles.

According to this view, the mere incompatibility between foreign judgments or public acts and domestic mandatory provisions is not enough to trigger the public policy defence. The same approach was followed by the Court of Appeal of Venice in the case that the Italian Constitutional Court is now called upon to consider. In particular, the Court of Appeal submitted that the fact that Italian law fails to make provision for same-sex marriage and for the attribution, to both the parties of a same-sex couple, of the parental status over a child born through medically assisted procreation, is not, in itself, evidence of the existence of a corresponding public policy principle. The statutes providing for such rules, indeed, are mere expression of the legislature’s political discretion.

However, the State Attorney was not satisfied by the judgment of the Court of Appeal and moved to have the ruling reviewed by the Supreme Court. He argued that the recognition of the Canadian judgment would be in clear breach of the Italian legislation on filiation and medically assisted procreation and, as a consequence, at odds with the public order of Italy. The State Attorney, in particular, invoked a different conception of the public policy, as adopted by the Joint Chambers of the Supreme Court.

And indeed, in 2019 the Joint Chambers remarked that other principles of the forum must be taken into account when determining the scope of public policy, in addition to the principles arising from the Constitution and international instruments. Domestic ordinary legislation may be seen as providing evidence of the fundamental policies of the Italian legal order as well, namely where it implements the principles enshrined in the Constitution.

According to that approach, while the recognition of the family relationship between the child born under a surrogacy arrangement and the intended biological father – through the recording of the birth certificate – is justified by the existence of a biological relationship, the recording of the part of the certificate mentioning as parent the merely intended (non-biological nor genetic) father would be at odds with the Italian (criminal) prohibition of gestational surrogacy arrangements, provided for in Article 12, paragraph 6, of the Italian Statute on Medically Assisted Procreation. Such regulation is deemed by the Joint Chambers to implement constitutional principles concerning the protection of the dignity of the woman and, consequently, to express a public policy principle. In the Joint Sections’ view, such a statement is imposed by an incontestable appreciation of the legislator and by the Constitutional Court’s case-law. As a consequence, judges would be precluded from substituting their own assessment on this matter.

The Joint Chambers added that the protection of the (best) interests of the child, in any case, would be guaranteed by the possibility, for the intended, non biological parent, to resort to the “adoption in particular cases”, pursuant to Article 44, paragraph 1, of the Italian Statute on Adoption. It is a sort of last resort clause allowing for recognition of the emotional bond between the child and the intended parent, when he/she is also the biological parent’s spouse, or, in any case, provided that the relationship has been established as a social reality. The Joint Chambers tried to frame their approach within the European Court of Human Rights’ (ECtHR) doctrine of the margin of appreciation. In particular, they considered that Italy had already complied with ECHR standards by providing full recognition of the child’s relationship with the biological parent. By contrast, in the absence of a biological link with the intended parent, State’s authorities would retain a wide margin of appreciation in choosing the appropriate mechanism for assuring the establishment of a legal relationship comparable (not identical) to natural filiation.

The ECtHR Approach and the Issue of the States’ Margin of Appreciation

The Joint Chambers’ approach is not in itself at odds with the ECHR standards, at least as they were standing at the moment of the 2019 ruling. In the Strasbourg judges’ opinion, the right to personal identity, enshrined in Article 8 ECHR, may imply a right to the cross-border continuity of personal statuses and family relationships created abroad (see Marongiu Buonaiuti and Baratta). And indeed, non-recognition of family statuses validly and effectively created abroad interferes with the right to private and family life. The case at hand fulfils the conditions required under Article 8 ECHR to be entitled to that right: (1) from a formal point of view, the family tie has been validly and legally created before seeking its recognition; (2) from a substantial point of view, the family relationship has been established a social reality, having the child lived with the biological and the intended father since he was born. Moreover, the case involves essential interests of a child, which should be a primary consideration of the State (Neuliger and Shuruck, para. 135).

According to the Court’s well-established case-law, however, if the interference is prescribed in accordance with the law, pursues a legitimate aim and is “necessary in a democratic society” for achieving it, it can be defined as legitimate. Such right might be limited by applying the public policy clause, which is a rule of law aimed at protecting the essential interests (and values) of the State. States enjoy a margin of appreciation in striking such a fair balance between States’ interests and individuals’ rights, that, nevertheless, has been progressively restricted by the ECtHR.

In Negrepontis-Giannisis the Court ruled that the refusal on public policy grounds to recognize an adoption pronounced (in 1984) by a Court in the U.S. between an adult and his uncle, a bishop of the Orthodox Church, violated Article 8. A few years later, the Court asserted in Paradiso and Campanelli that the public policy defence cannot be resorted to as a sort of “charte blanche for any measure, since the State ha[s] an obligation to take the child’s best interests into account irrespective of the nature of the parental link, genetic or otherwise” (para. 80). The Grand Chamber reversed the judgment because it considered that no family relationship existed in the considered case. Therefore, it was unnecessary to determine whether the interference produced by the public policy defence was legitimate, given that there was no right to interfere with.

In two well-known cases concerning the recognition of the family relationship between the child born under a surrogacy arrangement and the biological parent, the ECtHR considered that, even when a State is invoking the international public policy exception, the Court “must, however, verify whether in applying that mechanism … the domestic courts duly took account of the need to strike a fair balance between the interest of the community in ensuring that its members conform to the choice made democratically within that community [prohibiting gestational surrogacy arrangements] and the interest of the applicants – the children’s best interests being paramount – in fully enjoying their rights to respect for their private and family rights” (Labassee, para. 63 and Mennesson, para. 84). It then concluded that the children’s right to personal identity– which involves the right to have their family relationship with the (intended) biological or genetic parent recognized – trumped the State’s interests in protecting those it considers as fundamental values of the fore. According to the Court, the State had to grant the recording of the birth certificate for, at that time, no valid alternatives existed, according to the case-law of the French Court of Cassation, for establishing such a family relationship.

As for the family relationship between the child born under a gestational arrangement and the (merely) intended (non biological nor genetic) parent, the ECtHR expressed its views in the first advisory opinion, delivered, pursuant to Protocol No. 16 to the ECHR, on 10^th April 2019. Indeed, following the 2014 judgment in the Mennesson case, the French Cour de Cassation asked the Grand Chamber whether the State had, under the ECHR, an obligation to recognize the family relationship also with respect to the intended parent and whether, in this case, allowing the adoption of the child sufficed. As for the first question, the Court considered that «the general and absolute impossibility of obtaining recognition of the relationship … is incompatible with the child’s best interests» (para. 42). The Court did not distinguish between the fact of the intended mother being or not also the genetic or biological mother As for the second question, the Court stipulated that the case required a fair and appropriate balancing of interests. The invocation of the public policy clause – with the aim of denying direct recognition of the foreign birth certificate or judgment – would be legitimate, in the light of the State’s margin of appreciation, provided that, in any case, adoption or other available proceedings constitute “an effective [alternative] mechanism […], enabling the relationship to be recognized” (para. 54). Such a mechanism, in the Court’s opinion, should be appropriate (guaranteeing an effective recognition of parent-child relationship), rapid, and should allow for “an assessment by the courts of the child’s best interests in the light of the circumstances of the case” (ibidem). Moreover, recognition, whatever the legal instrument resorted to, must intervene not after its effective instauration as a social reality.

The Approach of the Supreme Court’s First Chamber

Although the ECtHR’s advisory opinion is not legally binding, the First Chamber of the Supreme Court in the 2020 Order considered it had to uphold its findings. It then questioned the Joint Chambers arguments concerning the public policy defence by highlighting, inter alia, that it is at odds with the developments in the ECtHR’s case law, at least for two reasons. On the one hand, the Court considered it is illegitimate to qualify the prohibition of surrogacy as public policy, and to make it automatically prevail over the best interests of the child, without an appropriate case-by-case evaluation. For this end, it should be assessed whether effective alternatives exist for upholding the best interests of the child. On the other hand (and consequently), the Italian legal system is currently at odds with the ECHR for the “adoption in particular cases” do not qualify as an effective alternative mechanism, in the abovementioned meaning.

The First Chamber relied on a combination of domestic and international human rights sources to shape the extent of public policy and concluded that the principle of the best interests of the child is part of the Italian international public policy. The application of the public policy exception then requires a balancing of interests between, on one hand, the child’s interest in having his/her relationship with the intended parent recognized and, on the other hand, the State’s interests in avoiding recognition of acts which are perceived as incompatible with domestic fundamental values. According to the First Chamber, such a balancing assessment might lead to the application of a foreign law or the recognition of foreign judgments (or public document) even in violation of domestic (ordinary) rules, provided that the supreme principles of the legal order – in particular, those concerning the fundamental rights and human dignity – are not violated.

The “adoption in particular cases” would not entail such a fair balance, for it does not create a full parent-child relationship, it requires a time-consuming and complex proceeding, exposing the child’s to a period of incertitude, and is conditioned upon the parties’ will. As for the content of the established relationship, it is not comparable to natural filiation, given that it does not involve family bonds between the child and the adopter’s relatives nor succession rights. And while the State’s margin of appreciation under the ECHR, the Supreme Court argued, is wide as regards the means by which family relationships are recognised, it is not as wide as regards the “intensity” and content of such relationships.

For all the above reasons, the First Chamber of the Italian Supreme Court asked the Constitutional Court whether the Joint Sections’ approach is constitutionally legitimate, also, and in particular, in the light of the State’s obligations arising from the ECHR and the CRC.

One should also consider that the “downgrading” of the family relationship through the “adoption in particular cases”, beyond being illegitimate in light of the constitutional principle of the unity of the status filiationis irrespective of the modality and circumstances of the child’s conception and birth, would also infringe the standards that have been recently clarified by the ECtHR.

Indeed, two months after the order of the First Chamber the ECtHR delivered its judgment in D. v. France. The Court implicitly confirmed the necessity of a full legal recognition of the intended parent-child relationship, although it admitted that the methods for achieving that aim can be determined by the State in the exercise of its margin of appreciation. It means that such recognition must not necessarily be achieved through the recording of the birth certificate, provided that the State guarantees and effective and rapid recognition. The ECtHR indeed concluded that the refusal to record the birth certificate of a child born in Ukraine through a gestational arrangement as long as it mentioned the intended mother – who was also the genetic mother – as the legal mother, did not violate Article 8 ECHR. In the Court’s reasoning, the French Cour de Cassation had already confirmed possibility for the (intended) mother to adopt her spouse’s child – for the birth certificate had been recorded in respect of the intended biological father – by way of full adoption. In the Court’s view, that possibility sufficed in order to establish an effective legal parent-child relationship. And indeed, full adoption is pronounced through a rapid proceeding (para. 67) and produces « des effets de même nature que la transcription de l’acte de naissance étranger s’agissant de la reconnaissance du lien de filiation entre l’enfant et la mère d’intention » (para. 66). The case seems then to confirm, a contrario, the Italian First Chamber’s argument: the denial to record the birth certificate is legitimate as long as an alternative mechanism enabling the establishment of a full parent-child relationship exist. Therefore, in Italy, where full adoption is not allowed in the same circumstances, the recording of the birth certificate seems the last valid alternative.

Thoughts and Perspectives

The approach of the First Chamber is commendable from an inter-systemic point of view, for it gives due relevance to the ECtHR approach. In this regard, one should also consider that France already complied with the ECtHR recommendation, given that the intended parent can resort to full adoption. Moreover, in the Mennesson case the Court de Cassation finally allowed the recognition of the parent-child relationship through the recording the foreign birth certificate which mentioned the intended mother as the legal mother (see Arrêt n. 648 P+B+R+I). Given the circumstances of the case, in fact, the Court considered that, following 15 years of judicial proceedings, the best interests of the child required an immediate recognition of the relationship, without imposing to the intended mother the institution of an adoption proceeding.

However, it is unlikely that the Italian Constitutional Court will conclude that non-recognition amounts to a violation of the Constitution. In fact, the Court itself ruled in the past that gestational arrangements violate the woman’s dignity and that, in any case, the adoption in particular cases is an adequate alternative to the (full) recognition of the parent-child relationship (Judgment No. 272 of 2017). It has also ruled against same-sex filiation through medically assisted procreation (Judgment No. 221 of 2019).

The relevant issue will thus concern the parameter of constitutionality arising from Article 117 of the Italian Constitution. Pursuant to that provision, as interpreted by the Constitutional Court since the twin Judgments Nos 348 and 349 of 2007, the legitimacy of ordinary legislation is also assessed against such international treaties as are in force for Italy. The Constitutional Court is then, first of all, called to assess whether the developments in the ECtHR’s case-law have already restricted the State’s margin of appreciation in respect of the recognition of the family relationship between the child born abroad under a surrogacy arrangement and the intended parent.

However, the late approach of the Constitutional Court has mitigated to idea of the prevalence of international principles over national ones (Judgment No. 269 of 2017) and has considerably impacted the extent of the binding nature of ECtHR’s judgments for national judges (Judgment No. 49 of 2015). It is then possible that the Constitutional Court will stipulate that the Constitution prevails over those international obligations. In fact, should the Constitutional Court conclude that the absence of suitable alternatives actually precludes Italian authorities, in the light of the ECHR, from invoking the public policy clause, it is also possible that the constitutional judges will invoke the doctrine of the “counter-limits”, although that doctrine, as for now, has been invoked only in relation to customary international law and European Union law. In particular, it has been invoked by the Constitutional Court (Judgment No. 238 of 2014), with respect to the dispute between Italy and Germany which arose when the Italian Supreme Court ruled that Germany was not entitled to immunity from Italian jurisdiction in civil proceedings where the claimants pleaded redress for serious human rights violations perpetrated by the Third Reich in Italy during World War II. The Constitutional Court concluded that respect for international obligations of the State – namely, the customary rule on State immunity as well as the judgment of the International Court of Justice which had condemned Italy to uphold such rule – could not extent to the point of infringing the “supreme” principles enshrined in the Constitution.

In the present case, there is the possibility that the Constitutional Court will conclude that the prohibition of surrogacy arrangements actually implements fundamental constitutional principles that cannot be trumped by ECHR obligations. And given that treaty provision, by definition, must respect constitutional provisions, the Court could also come to the same conclusion without invoking the counter-limits doctrine.

Should the Constitutional Court reject, for that or other reasons, the referral, the First Chamber would be obliged to apply the current interpretation of the public order defence, as stipulated by the Joint Chambers. In this case, the couple might then apply to the ECtHR, seeking a declaration that Italy violated Article 8 ECHR.

In conclusion, while the First Chamber is trying to engage in a dialogue with the ECtHR and to uphold its findings in the Italian legal order, the case also prospects the possibility of a direct clash between the European Court of Human Rights and the Italian Constitutional Court, concerning a very sensitive and ethical issue. Given that it is quite unlikely that the Parliament would opt for a reform of the legislation to comply with the ECHR standards, the Constitutional judgement will decide whether Italy will be in a systemic and persistent situation of breaching the ECHR.

The Supreme Administrative Court in Poland (Naczelny Sąd Administracyjny – NSA) issued on 10 September 2020 two judgments concerning the legal status in Poland of a child born by a surrogate mother in the US.

Transcription – No!  

A US birth certificate indicated a Polish national as the father and also contained information that the child was born through surrogacy (without mentioning the surrogate mother’s name).

Two judgments were issued as a result of two separate administrative proceedings instituted by the father. One concerned the application for the transcription of the US birth certificate into Polish civil status registry. The other was resulted from the application for a confirmation that the child acquired Polish nationality by birth.

In both cases administrative authorities had rejected the requests based on grounds of public policy, stating that surrogacy arrangements are against fundamental principles of the legal order in Poland. One of these fundamental principles is that the mother is always a woman, who gave birth to the child, whereas paternity results from a scheme of legal presumptions. This argument is not new, as similar cases were dealt with before by administrative authorities and administrative courts.

This argument was also upheld by the NSA in the first judgement (signature: II OSK 1390/18) where it underlined that a foreign birth certificate, which does not indicate the mother, but only the father may not be transcribed into Polish civil status registry.

Acquisition of Nationality  – Yes!

What shows a slight evolution in the Court’s attitude is the second judgment (signature: II OSK 3362/17), where the NSA stated that a foreign birth certificate is the only proof of an occurrence mentioned in it and its probative force may not be questioned in the course of an administrative proceeding concerning acquisition of the nationality. For a confirmation to be produced, it suffices that the foreign birth certificate indicates a Polish national as a parent.

Here it might be reminded that an opposite view of the NSA with respect to nationality of children born by a surrogate mother resulted in a claim filed to the European Court of Human Rights against Poland in 2015 (communicated in 2019 – see cases nos. 56846/15 and 56849/15: here).

If Not Transcription – What?

The two commented cases show that in NSA’s view surrogacy arrangements are against public order in Poland, but at the same time the fact of being born by a surrogate mother should not impact the legal status in every respect and consequently quality of life of the child in Poland. In the first mentioned judgement, the NSA underlined that even without Polish birth certificate the child should be able to obtain a PESEL number (explained below), a national ID card and a passport. The practical question is whether the above is a wishful thinking of the NSA or this will happen in practice.

It must be explained that for an everyday life and functioning in Poland one should have a PESEL number (which name comes from the first letters of the Powszechny Elektroniczny System Ewidencji Ludności – the General Electronic System of Population Registration).

A PESEL must be provided when one applies for ID card, passport, files a tax return or wants to get a drug prescription. Similarly, a child’s PESEL must be indicated if parents/legal representatives apply for child’s ID card, want the child to be covered by the national social security system or want the child to go to a kindergarten. For children born in Poland (no matter if to Polish parents or foreigners) PESEL is issued in connection with the drafting of a birth certificate. If a Polish child is born abroad, the PESEL is issued in connection with the application for an ID card or a passport.

Hence, if a child does not have a Polish birth certificate or a foreign birth certificate which might be transcribed into Polish civil status registry (and additionally is not perceived as a Polish national), administrative authorities do not have an adequate legal basis for allocating a PESEL to the child and … everyday life might get complicated.

What are the Effects of the Judgments?

The judgments issued by the NSA are binding on the administrative authorities concerned and with respect to the particular cases at issue, but not on other authorities in other proceedings.

Hence, it remains to be seen whether a PESEL number and ID documents will be issued based on a foreign birth certificate as suggested by the NSA or whether another time-consuming proceeding will commence. As one can imagine the commented proceedings lasted for few years counting from the first application to the judgement of the NSA.

The information about the above two cases was published by Polish Ombudsman (Rzecznik Praw Obywatelskich) on its official website (see: here). The ombudsman joined both cases to support the applicant. Usually NSA’s judgements are published in the freely available official database once the justification part of the judgement is prepared (here). The justification is written after the judgement was issued. Hence, it is not yet available.

The author of this post is Carlos Santaló Goris, research fellow at the MPI Luxembourg and PhD candidate at the University of Luxembourg.

On 3 August 2020, a Polish notary referred a request for a preliminary ruling to the Court of Justice of the European Union (“CJEU”).

The facts are simple: a Ukrainian citizen living in Poland asked a Polish notary to draft her will. She wanted Ukrainian law to apply to the succession. The notary refused, arguing that the law applicable to the succession cannot be chosen under the 1992 Ukrainian-Polish bilateral treaty on civil and criminal matters.

The applicant complained against the refusal; she claimed that the Succession Regulation, which allows the de cujus to choose the law of her nationality to rule the succession (Article 22), should apply instead. According to Polish law, the complaint procedure is to be brought before a notary.

The CJEU is asked to interpret the Succession Regulation, as follows:

1. Must Article 22 of [the Succession Regulation] also be interpreted as meaning that a person who is not a citizen of the Union is also entitled to choose his maternal law as the law applicable to the succession as a whole?
2. Is Article 75 in conjunction with Article 22 of [the Succession Regulation] to be interpreted as meaning that, where a bilateral convention binding a Member State to a non-member country does not govern the choice of law on succession but designates the law applicable in matters of succession, a national of that non-member country who resides in a Member State bound by that bilateral agreement may choose the law?
3. In particular: must a bilateral agreement with a non-member State expressly preclude the choice of a particular law, and not only the status of succession by means of objective criteria, in order for its provisions to prevail over Article 22 of [the Succession Regulation]? does the freedom to choose the succession law and to standardize the applicable law by choosing the law — at least to the extent defined by the EU legislature in Article 22 of [the Succession Regulation] — fall within the principles underlying judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters within the European Union and cannot be affected even in the event of the application of bilateral conventions with third countries which prevail over Regulation No 650/2012?

The Questions

In my view, the CJEU will not struggle to provide an answer to the first question of the request. The Succession Regulation applies to the wills drafted by authorities of the Member States; Article 20 declares its “universal application”; Article 22 does not make any difference between “States” and “Member State”; like EU nationals, third-State citizens can choose their national law.

The second question is trickier. It starts with the interpretation of the last sentence of Article 75(1) of the Regulation (“this Regulation shall not affect the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are party at the time of adoption of this Regulation and which concern matters covered by this Regulation”). Since the bilateral convention has no provision on the choice of law in relation to successions, it could be argued that this particular aspect is not foreseen, hence the Succession Regulation applies.

However, the convention does rule on the law applicable to movable and immovable estate, just like the Regulation, and therefore it should prevail. Should this be the case, the second part of the question would come into play. The CJEU is asked here to produce a declaration on values, likely to end up with the need to strike a balance – or not, for there is no doubt the negotiators knew about the contents of the conventions Article 75 intends to preserve, and about the fact that choice of law is not a widely accepted rule in succession matters. Should the principle of choice of law always prevail, Article 75 would be deprived of much of its sense.

Are Notaries Courts (in the Sense of Article 267 TFEU)?

Rather than the actual questions of the preliminary reference, what is more intriguing is whether Polish notaries deciding on complaints against the refusal to carry out a notarial act can address themselves directly to the CJEU via the preliminary reference. According to Article 267 of the TFEU, only courts can make preliminary references. In C-658/17, W.B., the CJEU determined that Polish notaries issuing a certificate of succession are not “courts” for the purpose of the Succession Regulation. Nonetheless, whether a notary reviewing a decision taken by a (actually, the same)  notary fits with the Article 267 of the TFEU is something different.

With a view to provide an autonomous notion, the CJEU has elaborated a list of prerequisites a domestic authority needs to comply with to be considered a court under Article 267: the body under examination must have been established by law, be permanent, have compulsory jurisdiction, adjudicate in an inter partes procedure, apply the rules of law, and be independent (C-54/96, Dorsch Consult, para. 23).

The analysis of the admissibility of the preliminary reference, focused on whether a notary fulfils the conditions just mentioned, will surely be the first step of the CJEU in the case at hand. In this regard, it is worth mentioning that the Polish Supreme Court and the Polish Constitutional Court have already explored whether, under Polish law, notaries acting in complaint procedures like the one at stake have the status of courts, and concluded that they may be considered first instance courts, performing ancillary functions of the administration of justice.

At any rate, the CJEU is not bound by the determinations of the national courts. It will decide on the basis of its own findings. And it will do so at a moment when the whole Polish judicial system is under suspicion (see C 354/20 PPU, and soon, C-412/20 PPU,  both widely reported in the press), and the future of judicial cooperation, also in civil matters, is an issue of legitimate concern.

The author of this post is Omar Vanin. He earned a Phd in Private International Law from the University of Padova and is now in private practice.

On 7 August 2020, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione) ruled on the non-recognition of a judgment whereby a Palestinian religious court had acknowledged the severance of the matrimonial ties between a muslim couple, on the ground that the judgment offended the public policy of Italy (the ruling is numbered as follows: No 16804/20; the text has not yet been officially published by the Court, but it’s available here through the website Cassazione.net).

The Facts

Proceedings were brought by a woman of Italian and Jordanian nationality against the recording in Italy of a judgment rendered, on an application by her husband, by the Sharia court of Western Nablus (West Bank). The husband had repudiated the woman in accordance with Islamic law, and the Sharia court, taking note of the repudiation (talaq), had certified that the couple had ceased to be bound by marriage.

The woman argued that the judgment was at odds with the public policy of Italy. She submitted, first, that Islamic law, as applied in the West Bank, failed to provide equal rights to the spouses in relation to divorce, and, secondly, that the she was not given an opportunity to present her case in the proceedings which resulted in the judicial declaration.

The man, for his part, claimed that talaq merely constituted a process of revocable separation, and that the judgment was passed after an unsuccessful attempt by the Sharia court to reconcile the couple.

Islamic Repudiation and its Judicial or Contractual Nature

Islamic law sees marriage as a contract. Talaq is one of the grounds on which marriage may be terminated.

The traditional view is that only the husband is entitled to have the marital ties severed by means of repudiation.

Developments have occurred in this area in several Islamic jurisdictions. In some of them, the wife may seek to have the marriage terminated through a declaration by the competent (religious) authority, based on a breach of the husband’s obligations towards her.

Concurrently, marriage termination is losing its ‘contractual’ features, and rather represents, in some jurisdictions, the outcome of a judicial procedure.

Against this backdrop, a case-by-case analysis may prove necessary to assess whether, in the circumstances, the authorities involved merely attested a unilateral termination prompted by the husband or rather declared such termination based on their own independent assessment.

The Judgment of the Italian Supreme Court

The Cassazione held that, in the case at issue, the basic procedural rights of the wife had been violated. Indeed, the woman did not take part in the proceedings instituted by her husband before the Sharia court, in the framework of which he irrevocably repudiated his wife.

In fact, the woman was notified of the procedure after the judgment was given, and only to enable the court to ascertain that no reconciliation had occurred in the three months following the decision.

In addition, the Cassazione ruled that the judgment was also incompatible with the substantive public policy of Italy, since talaq could only be exercised by the male spouse, thus violating the principle of equality of rights between husband and wife enshrined both in the Italian Constitution and in various international instruments in force for Italy, such as Protocol No. 7 to the European Convention on Human Rights.

The Court’s Findings Compared with Previous Italian Case Law and the Case Law of Other States  

By the described ruling, the Cassazione took a stance on a topic that lower courts in Italy have been discussing for several years. Prior to this judgment, the Court itself had relatively few opportunities to address the matter, the latest of which dates back to 1983.

The conclusion reached by the Supreme Court, namely that traditional talaq is inconsistent with public policy, accords with the Court’s own precedents and with most lower courts’ judgments. In fact, the reasoning of the Cassazione echoes, to a large extent, the reasoning of several among such lower courts.

In various respects, the views expressed by the Cassazione are in line with those expressed, often in a more nuanced way, in other European countries.

In 2014, for instance, the French Cour de Cassation denied the recognition of an Algerian judgment acknowledging the unilateral repudiation of an Algerian wife by an Algerian husband on the ground that it contravened the principe whereby the spouses enjoy equal rights as regards the termination of marriage.

The Cour de Cassation had previously granted effect to judgments rendered as a result of talaq, through the doctrine of ‘mitigated’ public policy. The latter doctrine posits that, in appropriate circumstances, foreign judgments offending as such public policy may nevertheless be granted recognition to the extent to which their authority is merely invoked as a basis for a different claim, one that is not, per se, inconsistent with public policy (e.g., a claim for spousal support based on the termination of marriage through talaq).

Eventually, the Cour de Cassation abandoned this line of thought in 2004, stressing the radical incompatibility of talaq with a paramount principle of the French legal system such as gender equality.

The question remains debated in France, among scholars, of whether a milder solution ought to be adopted where to deny recognitin would preclude the wife from enjoying some important benefits (see in general, among recent contributions available on the web, this paper by Yann Heyraud).

Note, incidentally, that the concept of ordre public atténué is not necessarily followed everywhere. The Italian Supreme Court, for example, has never explicitly endorsed the doctrine of attenuated effects in respect of talaq or other legal institutions.

Greek courts, for their part, have expressed the view that talaq judgments ought to be denied recognition on grounds of public policy. Recently, however, lower courts admitted the recognition of of such judgments in cases where an application to that effect was lodged by the wife herself (see further the chronicle and remarks by Apostolos Anthimos here).

Some Remarks

The position taken by the Italian Supreme could hardly be criticised in itself. The Court’s reasoning, however, is unpersuasive in at least two passages.

To begin with, the Cassazione failed to take a clear stance on the nature of talaq in a situation where a foreign judicial authority is involved in the process. Arguably, the issue has repercussions on the methods through which the severance of matrimonial ties may be given effect in Italy. If the severance of those is understood to be produced by a judicial decision (i.e., one based on an assessment by the authority in question, following the husband’s declaration), its effectiveness in Italy depends on whether the conditions for the recognition of such a foreign decision are met in the circumstances. Instead, if talaq is labelled as a contractual act (i.e., as a declaration of the husband that the competent judicial authority is merely required to attest, e.g., for publicity reasons), then its effects in Italy would depend on whether the act in question was performed in accordance with the law specified under the pertinent Italian conflict-of-laws rules. Of course, public policy may prevent a talaq from producing effects in Italy in both scenarios, but the question remains of whether the issue of its should be addressed against the background of the rules on the recognition of judgments rather than those on the conflicts of laws. In some cases, the conditions required under the applicable rules may not be fulfilled, which would make any inquire into public policy useless.

In the case at issue, the Cassazione observed that the Sharia court of Western Nablus simply took note of the repudiation, without carrying out, properly speaking, any assessment. The Court, however, failed to elaborate on the implications of such a characterisation for the identification of the relevant methods and rules of private international law, and in fact contented itself with noting that the decision ought to be denied recognition on grounds of public policy.

The second questionable passage in the Supreme Court’s ruling is a general remark whereby a foreign judgment declaring the severance of matrimonial ties ought to be denied recognition on grounds of public policy unless such a judgment is based on, or at least implies, a finding that the bond of affection between the spouses has irretrievably come to an end.

Doubts may be raised as to the pertinence of the latter requirement. As a matter of fact, even Italian courts do not inquire into the reasons why the spouses may be seeking divorce, when pronouncing the dissolution of marriage under Italian law.

The Court of Justice of the European Union has delivered its ruling in the Novo Banco case (C‑253/19) on 16 July 2020.

The issue before the Court was the determination of the center of main interests (COMI) of individuals not exercising an independent business or professional activity under the Insolvency Regulation, and thus the jurisdiction of the courts of the Member States to open insolvency proceedings against such individuals.

Article 3(1) of the Insolvency Regulation provides that the COMI of such individuals is presumed to be at their place of habitual residence. The issue was more precisely how this presumption could be rebutted.

In this case, the individuals were English residents who were employed in Norfolk. Yet, they claimed that the centre of their main interests was not their habitual residence in the United Kingdom, but rather in Portugal, the Member State where the sole immovable asset which they own was located and where all the transactions and all the contracts leading to their insolvency were conducted and concluded. Furthermore, there was no connection between their place of habitual residence and the events that led to their insolvency, which occurred entirely in Portugal.

The Court ruled:

28 Although the location of the debtor’s assets is one of the objective criteria, ascertainable by third parties, to be taken into consideration when determining the place where the debtor conducts the administration of his or her interests on a regular basis, that presumption may be reversed only following an overall assessment of all the objective criteria. It follows that the fact that the only immovable property of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is located outside the Member State of his or her habitual residence is not sufficient on its own to rebut that presumption.

29 In the present case, the applicants in the main proceedings also argue before the referring court that Portugal is not only the Member State where their only immovable property is located but also the Member State where all the transactions and all the contracts leading to their insolvency were conducted and concluded.

30 In that regard, although the cause of the insolvency is not, as such, a relevant factor for determining the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity, it nevertheless falls to the referring court to take into consideration all objective factors, ascertainable by third parties, which are connected with that person’s financial and economic situation. In a case such as the one in the main proceedings, as was observed in paragraph 24 above, that insolvency situation is located in the place where the applicants in the main proceedings conduct the administration of their economic interests on a regular basis or the majority of their revenue is earned and spent, or the place where the greater part of their assets is located.

31 In view of all of the foregoing factors, the answer to the question is that the first and fourth subparagraphs of Article 3(1) of Regulation 2015/848 must be interpreted as meaning that the presumption established in that provision for determining international jurisdiction for the purposes of opening insolvency proceedings, according to which the centre of the main interests of an individual not exercising an independent business or professional activity is his or her habitual residence, is not rebutted solely because the only immovable property of that person is located outside the Member State of habitual residence. 

On 13 May 2020, the French Supreme Court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) issued an interesting decision on jurisdiction based on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation in case of online defamation (here).

The French Court implemented the Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan Case ruled by the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in 2017, but also asked for clarification on its scope of application to the CJEU (here).

Facts

A Czech company, Gtflix Tv, content producer and distributor, sued a film director and distributor, MX, domiciled in Hungary, before French court for unfair competition resulting from online defamation. The company accused MX of having used insulting language against itself and its website materiel on different online forums and websites. Therefore, the company asked for the removal and rectification of the defaming contents as well as for financial compensation. According to it, French jurisdiction should arise under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, since French viewers are the main audience. MX opposed a lack of international jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal of Lyon followed the latter position and dismissed the demand. Gtflix Tv appealed to the Supreme Court.

Issue at Stake

The legal issue submitted to the French Supreme Court was therefore to determine if any relevant connecting factors pursuant Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, as interpreted by the CJEU, could assert the French jurisdiction.

Legal Background

The application of Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (corresponding to Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation) regarding online defamation matters is not a new issue. In the eDate Case on online infringements of personality rights, the CJEU held that the victim has “the option of bringing an action for liability, in respect of all the damage caused, either before the courts of the Member State in which the publisher of that content is established or before the courts of the Member State in which the centre of his interests is based”. In addition, the Court of justice also admitted that the victim could bring “his action before the courts of each Member State in the territory of which content placed online is or has been accessible” but “only in respect of the damage caused in the territory of the Member State of the court seised”.

Then, this acquis was partially extended by the Bolagsupplysningen and Ilsjan Case to infringements related to online publication of incorrect information and failure to remove comments. On the one hand, the CJEU ruled, by analogy, that the victim could bring an action for rectification and removal of the contested comments and for compensation in respect of all the damage sustained “before the courts of the Member State in which its centre of interests is located”. On the other hand, the CJEU refused to distribute the jurisdiction between “the courts of each Member State in which the information published on the internet was accessible” to rule on rectification and removal of the comments. It is worth noting that the Court of Justice left out the claim for damages.

Response of the French Supreme Court and Preliminary Reference to the CJEU

In the present case, the French Supreme Court applied, by analogy, the Bolagsupplysningen acquis to the unfair competition claim, following publication on the Internet of defaming information against Gtflix TV and failure to remove comments. Since France is not the Member State in which the victim has its centre of the interests under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation (the Czech Republic is), nor the Member State in which the defendant, MX, is domiciled pursuant Article 4, French courts have no competent jurisdiction to hear this part of the case. However, according to the French Supreme Court, the question of jurisdiction for financial compensation remains unclear (for other national judgements on this issue, see the post of Geert Van Calster on Gtflix Tv). Should the Bolagsupplysningen interpretation be extended to that additional issue and exclude the distribution of jurisdiction based on the different places where the information published on the Internet is accessible? Or, on the contrary, should the eDate alternative in favour of the fragmentation of jurisdiction remain applicable? Following the latter solution, French courts could indeed have a partial jurisdiction.

This is the question referred by the French Supreme Court to the CJEU.

As encouraged by the CJEU in its Recommendations to national courts and tribunals in relation to the initiation of preliminary ruling proceedings, the French Supreme Court sketched out a response. Considering the proper administration of justice, it took position in favour of an extension of the Bolagsupplysningen ruling. The competent jurisdiction for ruling on rectification and removal of online comments under Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation should have an exclusive jurisdiction to rule on damages, because of the obvious connection between the two actions.

This solution would make online defamation claims much easier and more predictable. And it would contribute to adapt the European jurisdictional rules to the transnational digital area.

The Court has delivered its ruling in Verein für Konsumenteninformation v Volkswagen AG (Case C-343/19) yesterday.

The court rules that a motor vehicle manufacturer whose unlawfully manipulated vehicles are resold in other Member States may be sued in the courts of those States, and that the damage suffered by the purchaser occurs in the Member State in which he purchases the vehicle for a price higher than its actual value.

The judgment can be accessed here. See also the Press Release of the Court here.

In the last decade, the French law of diplomatic immunity has changed numerous times. This is not great for legal certainty, but it can get much worse if the different rules are applied in the same case. This should not be possible in a democratic State, but this is what happened in Commisimpex v. Republic of Congo.

Background

Commisimpex is a Congolese company which conducted serious construction work in Congo in the mid 1980s. It was headed by Lebanese businessman Mohsen Hojeij who was presented by the general press as a personal friend of the President of Congo, Denis Sassou-Nguesso, although Hojeij himself denies it. Commisimpex claimed that Congo did not pay some of the work and initiated arbitral proceedings which eventually led to two arbitral awards ordering Congo to pay various sums which total today over a billion euros. Since then, Commisimpex has been trying to enforce the awards over any assets of Congo that it may find.

To resist enforcement, Congo developed two strategies. The first was to generate a contradictory judgment which might bar the enforcement of the awards. The second was to challenge the enforceability of the waiver of its sovereign immunities.

A Timely Congolese Judgment

A few months after Commisimpex initiated enforcement proceedings of the arbitral awards in France (see below), the Congolese social security institution claimed that Commisimpex had failed to pay its contributions for decades and requested that insolvency proceedings be opened against the company. Two insolvency officials were appointed. French courts would later find that the first had represented the State of Congo, and the second was employed by the Presidency of the State of Congo.

In 2014, Congolese tax authorities also started to review the tax situation of Commisimpex, to eventually fid that Commisimpex owed over a billion euros of taxes to the Congolese State. Remarkably, the amount corresponded pretty much to the amounts of the arbitral awards.

At the end of 2014, the Congolese judge in charge of the liquidation issued an order whereby he ruled that a set off occurred between the claims resulting from the awards and the tax claims, and that the latter being higher than the former, a tax claim still remained. French courts would later find that Commisimpex was neither informed about this particular aspect of the proceedings, and even less heard.

Congo then attempted to have the 2014 Congolese order declared enforceable in France. Its enforcement was denied by the Paris first instance court in 2015, and then by the Paris Court of appeal, on the ground of lack of impartiality of the insolvency officials and violation of the right to be heard.

The Evolving Law of Diplomatic Immunity in France

In a letter of 1993, the Republic of Congo had waived all jurisdiction and enforcement immunities in this case. A critical issue became whether the waiver covered assets protected by diplomatic immunity.

A New Rule of Customary International

In two cases of 2011 and 2013, the French Supreme Court for Criminal and Civil Matters (Cour de cassation) invented a rule of customary international law, allegedly grounded in the 2004 UN Convention on the Jurisdictional Immunities of States and their Property, providing that diplomatic immunity could not be waived by a general waiver of all sovereign immunities, whether of jurisdiction or enforcement, but that it could only be waived by a declaration which was both express and “special”, i.e. specifically mentioning diplomatic immunity.

Meanwhile, in the same year 2011, Commisimpex attached the bank accounts of the diplomatic mission of Congo and its delegation to UNESCO in Paris. French lower courts applied the new 2011 precedent of the Cour de cassation and set aside the attachements, as Congo has not expressly and specifically waived its diplomatic immunity.

A New Precedent

Commisimpex appealed to the Cour de cassation which, remarkably, overruled itself in a judgment of 13 May 2015 and held that customary international law only required an express waiver of diplomatic immunity. Indeed, that is all that the 1961 Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations ever required. The waiver of Congo did not mention diplomatic immunity and was thus not specific, but it was express. The Court allowed the appeal.

The case was thus sent back to the Paris Court of Appeal. In June 2016, the Paris Court of Appeal applied the new doctrine of the Cour de cassation and ruled that Commisimpex could attach the bank accounts of the Diplomatic Mission and UNESCO Delegation in Paris. Congo appealed to the Cour de cassation.

A New Law

However, the French Parliament got concerned that creditors of States could enforce too easily their awards (or judgments) in France and thus intervened in December 2016 to reinstate a requirement that diplomatic (and consular) immunities may only be waived by express and specific waivers (see today Article L. 111-1-2 and L. 111-1-3 of the French Code of Civil Enforcement Procedures). Of course, the new law could only apply to enforcement proceedings initated after its entry into force.

Two years later, the case came back before the Cour de cassation, which it seems, took very seriously the message sent by the Parliament that France should be more understanding with foreign states. In a judgment of 10 January 2018, the Cour de cassation ruled that, although the Cour of Appeal of Paris had perfectly applied the 2015 ruling, the law had changed, and a waiver of diplomatic immunity could only be enforced if express and specific. Of course, the Cour de cassation noted, the new law was not applicable to enforcement proceedings initiated 7 years earlier, but it still decided to apply the new requirements in the present case, because

it was absolutly necessary, in a field touching on the sovereignty of states and the preservation of their diplomatic representation, to treat like cases alike. Thus. the objective of legal consistency and certainly requires to come back to the previous case law [the 2011-2013 precedents] conforted by the new law.

And as if it was not enough, the Cour de cassation decided to close the case and thus, instead of sending it back to a lower court, to finally rule that the diplomatic monies attached in 2011 were protected by a diplomatic immunity which had not been waived.

Is this Constitutional? A New Rule of Customary International Law

The most remarkable part of the 2018 judgment was that the Cour de cassation decided to apply retroactively new rules in a case where it had taken an entirely different position a few years earlier. At first sight, that looks contrary to the most basic principles of the rule of law.

Commisimpex’s lawyers decided to create a situation to allow them to bring the matter before the French Constitutional Council. They attached again diplomatic funds. Lower courts ruled that they could not, as per the 2018 judgment of the Cour de cassation. Commisimpex appealed to the Cour de cassation, and requested that the issue of the constitutionality of the retroactive application of the new rules (whether judge made or statutory) be put to the Contitutional Council.

In a judgment of 2 October 2019, the Cour de cassation ruled that there was no issue, and thus no need to petition the Constitutional Council, on the ground that the 2018 judgments had not applied the new law, but only Articles 22 and 25 of the 1961 Vienna Convention and customary international law.

The French reconstruction of customary international law continues.

Meanwhile, Commisimpex has attached a Falcon 7X business jet belonging to the presidency of Congo. Is it covered by diplomatic immunity? Stay tuned.

On 28 May 2020, the German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) decided to refer a question for a preliminary ruling to the ECJ regarding Articles 80 and 84 of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The case, brought by consumer protection groups, is about the alleged violation, by the operator of a social network, of the obligation to inform users about the scope and purpose of the collection and use of their data.

Background

The Irish-based defendant, Facebook Ireland Limited, operates the “Facebook” social network. On the internet platform of this network there is an “app center” in which the defendant makes free online games of other providers accessible to the users of its platform. In November 2012, several games were offered in this app center, for which the following information could be read under the button “Play now”: “Clicking on Play game above gives this application: your general information, your email address, about you, your status. This application may post on your behalf, including your score and more.” In one game, the notice ended with the phrase: “This application may post information on your status, photos, and more on your behalf”.

The plaintiff is the umbrella organization of the consumer centers of the Federal states. It claims, among other, that the presentation of the information under the “Play now” button in the app center is improper, including from the point of view of the legal requirements for obtaining effective data protection consent from the user. It considers itself entitled to enforce injunctive relief by bringing an action before the civil courts in accordance with the relevant German rules on unfair competition and consumer protection.

In the first instance, the district court ordered the defendant to refrain from presenting games on its website in an app center in such a way that users of the internet platform, by clicking a button such as “play game”, allow the game operator to use personal data stored there, and is authorized to transmit (post) information on behalf of the user (LG Berlin, 28 October 2014, 16 O 60/13). The defendant’s appeal was unsuccessful (Kammergericht Berlin, 22 September 2017, 5 U 155/14). The defendant has filed a second appeal with the BGH.

The question

The question referred to the ECJ focuses on whether the criteria set out in Chapter VIII of the GDPR, in particular in Article 80(1) and (2) and in Article 84(1), conflict with national rules granting to competitors and associations, institutions and bodies authorized under national law, the right to sue before the civil courts for infringements under the GDPR regardless of the violation of specific rights of individual data subjects, and without any mandate from a data subject.

This question is controversial in the case law of the lower courts and in legal literature. Some consider that the GDPR contains a final regulation for the enforcement of the data protection provisions made in this Regulation, and that associations are therefore only authorized to bring proceedings under the conditions of Article 80 of the GDPR (which have not been met in the case at hand). According to others, the GDPR is not exhaustive, hence associations continue to be authorized to try and enforce injunctive relief in case of an alleged violation of personal data protection rules, independently of any infringement of specific rights of individual data subjects, and without the need of a mandate from a data subject.

The Court of Justice ruled in Fashion ID that the provisions of Directive 95/46/EC (the Data Protection Directive), which was in force until the General Data Protection Regulation became applicable on 25 May 2018, do not preclude associations from having legal standing. However, this decision does not indicate whether this right to bring an action remains in force under the GDPR.

On 12 May 2020, the Court of Appeal of England and Wales delivered an interesting decision in SAS Institute Inc. v. World Programming Ltd.

This is a long and complex case, which has reached, inter alia, the European Court of Justice on certain issues of IP law. But the case also raises a number of issues of private international law (see already the reports of Geert van Calster here and here).

In this post, I would like to focus on one particular aspect of last month’s judgment, namely the territoriality of enforcement of judgments, but the case is also concerned with the conditions for issuing anti-enforcement injunctions.

Background

The background of the enforcement issues is a dispute between a U.S. company (SAS) and a UK company (WPL) which resulted in a judgment delivered by a court of North Carolina and ordering WPL to pay about US$ 79 million. The American judgment, however, was denied enforcement in the UK on various grounds, including abuse of process and public policy.

The judgment creditor then initiated enforcement proceedings in a Californian court over assets located in various jurisdictions, including the U.K. The assets were debts of customers of WPL. The Californian enforcement orders required WPL to assign the debts to SAS (the Assignment Orders) and, for debts already paid, to turnover monies already paid to SAS (the Turnover Order).

Affecting Assets, Directly or Indirectly

The Court of Appeal started by recalling the basic principle, which is undoubtedly widely shared, according to which enforcement should be strictly territorial. Accordingly, in principle, the American enforcement orders were found to be exorbitant and infringe the sovereignty of the UK insofar as they affected the debts situated in the UK.

But, the judgment creditor argued, the territoriality principle really applied only to in rem enforcement proceedings. In contrast, the Assignment and Turnover Orders acted in personam. As many readers will know, English courts have a long tradition of using equitable remedies to do indirectly what they recognise they should not do directly. In recent times, the best example has certainly been the power to issue freezing orders with respect to assets situate abroad.

The admissibility of in personam remedies in this context was addressed by Lord Collins in Masri v Consolidated Contractors International (UK) Ltd (No. 2) in 2008. In this judgment, Lord Collins explained that in personam remedies would only be admissible if three conditions were met.

59. As I have said, the fact that it acts in personam against someone who is subject to the jurisdiction of the court is not determinative. In deciding whether an order exceeds the permissible territorial limits it is important to consider: (a) the connection of the person who is the subject of the order with the English jurisdiction; (b) whether what they are ordered to do is exorbitant in terms of jurisdiction; and (c) whether the order has impermissible effects on foreign parties. 

In the SAS v. WPL case, the Court of Appeal found that there were connections between the English debtor and the U.S., as the WPL was conducting business in the U.S. But it found the foreign orders raised problems insofar as they required positive actions from the English debtor. Finally, the Court of Appeal insisted that the American orders did include any proviso protecting third parties, in particular by assuring them that their position would not be affected unless the American orders were declared enforceable by the court of the situs of the debt (ie here the English court).

The Court concluded:

83. In the circumstances, the proposed Assignment and Turnover Orders can properly be regarded as exorbitant, being contrary to the internationally accepted principle that enforcement of a judgment is a matter for the courts of the state where the asset against which it is sought to enforce the judgment is located.

The Court then moved on to discuss whether it should issue an anti-enforcement injunction.

And the Brussels Ibis Regulation?

It does not seem that the applicability of the Brussels I bis Regulation was raised at any point in this case.

One wonders, however, whether English courts were free to define territoriality of enforcement in a case concerned with enforcement of foreign judgments over assets situated in a Member State. There is no doubt that the jurisdiction of the English courts to rule on such matters was governed by Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which applies irrespective of the domicile of the parties.

It could be that the Court of Appeal considered that the source of the territoriality principle did not matter, because it is so widely accepted. Lord Justice Males repeated several times that the principle is recognised internationally, and flows from rules of international law. Most unfortunately, however, he did not cite any source of international law in support of his position, but rather other English judges.

The devil is in the details. Everybody can agree on the existence and content of a principle of territoriality of enforcement when one remains at a high level of generality. But the doctrine developed by Lord Collins in Masri is sophisticated, and there is no particular reason indicating that it is representative of customary international law or, more importantly, EU autonomous law under Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation.

In February 2020, the Spanish Constitutional Court ordered the review of a judgment requiring the actor Christopher Lee to pay 710.000 Euros to the author of a painting that was used to promote a film without the latter’s permission.

The Court considered that the Commercial Court of Burgos (Spain) had violated Lee’s fundamental right to an effective judicial protection, in that it had not heard him nor proceeded to personal service of the judgement at any time prior to issuing an enforcement order against the actor in October 2009.

The controversy relates to the movie Jinnah and, specifically, to one of the posters by which it was promoted. The Commercial Court of Burgos considered that the use of the work “constituted an infringement of exclusive rights” and awarded a compensation to the author of the work.

The  lawsuit had been filed by the painter against a business corporation (The Quaid Project Limited), Mr. Christopher Frank Carandini Lee and Mr. Juan Francisco Aneiros Rodríguez, as representative of the official website of Christopher Lee. The three co-defendants were domiciled in London; neither The Quaid Project Limited nor Mr. Carandini Lee appeared. At the time, only Mr. Aneiros could be personally served at the address established in a contract previously signed with the plaintiff.

The decision against Lee was therefore taken in absentia. It has turned out that the Burgos Court’s attempts to have the claim and the judgment served to the defendant at the addresses provided by the claimant were unsuccessful, and that the Court contented itself with service by publication. After the judgment was delivered, a writ of execution (auto de despacho de ejecución) was granted and certified as a European enforcement order, thus allowing for enforcement to be tried in the United Kingdom (Lee’s place of residence).

According to the Constitutional Court, the absence of personal service led to a violation of Lee’s right of access to justice, for it prevented him from participating in proceedings where his financial obligations were at issue. The Court also expressed doubts regarding the assessment of the damages, which had been made without calling for any expertise. Despite this, the Court in Burgos had considered the figure to be appropriate and in September 2010 had ordered that the defendants’ bank accounts be seized, requesting information for this purpose from different banking entities.

After learning about the proceeding “through a letter” written by the claimant’s lawyers, that reached him “through a London-based office,” in February 2014 Lee asked unsuccessfully for the proceedings to be declared void. The actor passed away in June 2015; an application was filed with the Constitutional Court by his heirs, which in a judgment dated February 24 has ruled in favor of C. Lee.

On the Legal Standing of the Heirs

Before the Constitutional Court, the claimant in the ordinary proceedings contested the legal standing of Lee’s heirs in light of UK succession law, relying in particular on the condition of testamentary executor and manager of the estate of Birgit Lee.

The Constitutional Court dismissed this part of the defense recalling its previous case law based on Article 162.1 b) of the Spanish Constitution and Article 46.1 b) of the Constitutional Court Act, whereby legal standing derives from having “a legitimate interest”. The category is interpreted broadly and granted to any person whose legal stance (“círculo legal”) may be harmed by the violation of a fundamental right, even if the violation does not occur directly against him or her.

The Court went on to add that, in the past, the heirs of a deceased plaintiff had been admitted to take over in an “amparo” appeal for the defense of personality rights. When (like in the case under examination) the ruling on “amparo” entails economic consequences for the estate, the recognition of legal standing to the heirs is even more reasonable.

On the Violation of the Right to a Due Process

The main issue raised by the appellants before the Constitutional Court focused on the violation of the late Lee’s right to a due process, caused by the wrongful application by the Spanish commercial court of Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order (EEO) for uncontested claims. In this context, the appellants argued first  that only a judicial decision ending the ordinary proceedings, and not the writ of execution can be certified as an EEO. Secondly, in a nutshell, they contested the enforceability of the resolution adopted in absentia, with service having been made by edicts by a court which relied on the informations given by the claimant without further ado.

The Constitutional Court was silent as to the first prong of the complaint. In my view, the appellant was wrong: whereas according to Article 517 Spanish Code of Civil Procedure (Ley de Enjuiciamiento Civil) the enforcement title is indeed the decision on the merits, the definition of “resolution” comprises as well the writ of execution which in Spanish procedural law follows and opens up the enforcement procedure itself.

As to the second prong, the Court was requested to examine whether the application made by the Spanish commercial court of the EEO Regulation, granting the EEO based on service by publication, violated the right to effective judicial protection of the defendant. For this purposes, the Constitutional Court started by asserting that the Burgos Court, to the extent it applied rules of European Union law, must have been aware that it was not only bound by Article 24.1 of the Spanish Constitution, but also by Article 47 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union (CFREU).

The Constitutional Court focused then on how service had been made, in order to assess whether in the procedure prior to the adoption of the judgement the certification of which is at stake , the rights to a hearing and to self-defense of the debtor had been respected. This examination is reserved for cases in which the non-appearance of the defendant amounts to a tacit admission of the claim or of the facts alleged by the creditor under the law of the Member State of origin, and, as a consequence, the claim may be deemed “uncontested” for the purposes of Regulation No 805/2004. Regarding service without proof of receipt by the debtor (Article 14 of the Regulation), the Regulation describes various admissible modalities, all of which require that the debtor’s domicile is known with certainty. In this way, the Regulation establishes a minimum standard of the right of defense so as to ensure that the non-appearance of the debtor was conscious and voluntary, thus an absence of the intention to challenge the credit can be inferred therefrom.

At this point, the Constitutional Court makes the most important assertion of its judgment, acknowledging the need to assess “whether a notification by edicts made totally ignoring the debtor’s address, which may eventually be valid in our system from the point of view of Article 24.1 [Spanish Constitution], is also valid from the perspective of Article 47 CFREU for the purposes of granting a European Enforcement Order”. It goes on saying that “the answer to this question, taking into account Recital 13 of Regulation 805/2004 and the decision of the Court of Justice (First Chamber) in Case C-292/10, Cornelius de Visser, of 15 March 2012, must be negative. The Court of Justice of the European Union affirms that although a default judgment is among the titles that can be certified as European enforcement orders (Article 3 of the Regulation), this is not the case when it has been issued without determining the domicile of the respondent” (the translation is mine).

In my view, this is not a bad judgment. However, one cannot avoid feeling a little bit dismayed when learning  that one of the defendants, Mr. Juan Aneiros, who could be served at his domicile, was the son-in-law of C. Lee and, as said, the manager of his official website. Difficult to believe that C. Lee could only learn about the process after he had been sentenced to pay, but not before. However, this was for the Constitutional Court to decide; it has spoken and – not unimportat in this tough times for the EU – followed the case law of the CJEU.

The author of this post is Vincent Richard, Senior Fellow at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law.

On 14 May 2020, the CJEU gave a preliminary ruling in Bouygues travaux publics, a case regarding the binding effect of social security certificates issued by the social security authority of a Member State on the courts of another Member State where workers are posted. The judgment was rendered in the context of French criminal proceedings against Bouygues travaux publics for infringements of labour law during the construction of the EPR nuclear power plant in Normandy.

Background

EPR nuclear reactors represent the new generation of nuclear power plants conceived to be safer than current reactors. Construction have started in Finland and France fifteen years ago but both projects ran into costly delays. So far, two reactors have been completed in Taishan, in the Guangdong province of China while the European nuclear plants are still under construction.

The EPR nuclear plants constructed in Olkiluoto in Finland is scheduled for 2021 after a dispute that was concluded with a settlement whereby the Areva-Siemens consortium agreed to pay 450 million euros to the Finnish utility company TVO. Two more reactors are being built at Hinkley Point in England with a starting date scheduled between 2025 and 2027.

Construction of the French EPR reactor started in 2007 in Flamanville in Normandy with a projected cost of 3.3 billion euros. According to French newspapers, completion is now expected for 2023 with a total cost of more than 12 billion euros. The project has faced technical difficulties but it has also run into legal troubles surrounding employment contracts of Eastern European workers.

Criminal Proceedings in France

To complete such a massive project, Bouygues travaux publics formed a limited partnership with two other undertakings and it subcontracted the contract to an economic interest grouping that included, among others, Welbond, a company domiciliated in France. This grouping itself used subcontractors, including Elco, a company established in Romania to supply Romanian workers and Atlanco Ltd, a temporary employment company established in Ireland with a subsidiary in Cyprus and an office in Poland to supply Polish workers.

An investigation by the French nuclear safety authority and then the French police revealed that, between 2008 and 2012, there had been more than one hundred unreported workplace accidents on the construction site, as well as several other infringements of French labour law. Subsequently, Polish workers sued the above-mentioned companies before the labour court of Cherbourg, France, and French prosecutors initiated criminal proceedings against Bouygues, Welbond and their subcontractors before the criminal court in Cherbourg (all decisions in French can be found here).

On appeal, the court of appeal of Caen held that the companies were guilty of the offences of concealed employment and unlawful provision of workers. It ruled that Elco, the Romanian company, could not rely on the European legislation on posting of workers because it had a stable and continuous activity in France. Therefore, the contracts should be characterised as French employment contracts and the company should have complied with French labour law and declared the workers to French authorities prior to their recruitment. Workers were hired in Romania for the sole purpose of working in France and some of them had worked there for more than 24 months. Similarly, Atlanco had hired temporary Polish workers to work in France through its Cypriot branch by making them sign a contract drawn up in Greek. Atlanco never appeared in court but Bouygues and Welbond were held guilty of concealed employment offences for the workers supplied by Atlanco, by not declaring the workers to French authorities. This “declaration prior to recruitment of employees” aims to register workers officially so that the offence of concealed employment be easier to prove in the absence of such declaration.

Question Referred to the CJEU

The main argument of the defendants was to rely on the legal value of the E101 and A1 certificates that they had provided to French authorities. These certificates were required by regulations n. 1408/71 and 574/72 (replaced respectively by regulations n. 883/2004 and 987/2009) on the coordination of social security systems. These forms, issued by the social security authority of the Member State of origin, certify that the worker is covered by the social security of that Member State and thus exclude the application of another social security legislation.

According to CJEU case law in Herbosch Kiere and A-Rosa Flussschiff GmbH, the certificates are binding on both the social security institutions and on the courts of the Member State where the work is carried out. If the authority of this Member State raises doubts as to the correctness of the certificate, the issuing authority in the Member State of origin must re-examine the grounds on which the certificate was issued (Fitzwilliam). In Altun, the CJEU provided for a limited exception whereby a court can disregard the certificate when evidence supports the conclusion that a certificate was obtained fraudulently and only if the issuing authority fails to take that evidence into consideration for the purpose of reviewing the certificate.

In the present case, French lower courts have applied French labour law, whereby employers have to make a declaration to social security authorities prior to recruiting employees. This declaration allows to complete several administrative formalities at once. It aims to register workers officially not only to the social security scheme but also to the occupational health services or retirement schemes. Before the Cour de cassation (which is the French Supreme Court for civil and criminal disputes) the defendants argued that this declaration was not necessary because French authorities were bound by the foreign certificates, and therefore French social security and labour laws do not apply. Unsure about the scope of these certificates, the French Supreme Court asked the CJEU whether the binding effect of the certificates regarding the affiliation to social security extends to the law applicable to the labour obligations of the employer, such as the French declaration prior to recruitment. For the CJEU, the question is tantamount to deciding whether the certificate binds the court of the Member State where employees are working not only in the area of social security, but also in the area of employment law.

Ruling

In its decision, the CJEU stresses that the certificates are designed to facilitate freedom of movement for workers and that Member States should apply the principle of sincere cooperation, laid down in Article 4(3) TEU, which also entails the principle of mutual trust. Consequently, the certificates create a presumption that workers are properly affiliated to the social security scheme of the issuing Member State and this declaration is binding on the Member State where the work is carried out. However, because the certificates are prescribed by the European regulations on the coordination of social security systems, their scope is limited to social security matters, and they do not have a binding effect in employment law matters.

The Court held:

Article 11(1)(a), Article 12a(2)(a) and (4)(a) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 574/72 of 21 March 1972 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Council Regulation (EC) No 118/97 of 2 December 1996, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 647/2005 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 April 2005 and Article 19(2) of Regulation (EC) No 987/2009 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 September 2009 laying down the procedure for implementing Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 on the coordination of social security systems, must be interpreted as meaning that an E 101 Certificate, issued by the competent institution of a Member State, under Article 14(1)(a) or Article 14(2)(b) of Council Regulation (EEC) No 1408/71 of 14 June 1971 on the application of social security schemes to employed persons, to self-employed persons and to their families moving within the Community, in the version amended and updated by Regulation No 118/97, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) No 1606/98 of 29 June 1998, to workers employed in the territory of another Member State, and an A 1 Certificate, issued by that institution, under Article 12(1) or Article 13(1) of Regulation (EC) No 883/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the coordination of social security systems, as amended by Regulation (EC) No 465/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 22 May 2012, to such workers, are binding on the courts or tribunals of the latter Member State solely in the area of social security.

Comment

This decision is not ground-breaking but it will help the French authorities in their fight against social dumping. If the French Supreme Court considers that the effect of the declaration prior to recruitment are broader than social security legislation, French prosecutors will be able to sue employers before criminal courts for offences of concealed employment if companies do not submit this declaration to French authorities. That being said, in the EPR case, the court of appeal ordered defendants to pay fines ranging from 15.000 to 60.000 euros while the loss to French social security is estimated by French newspapers to be between 10 and 12 million euros.

Overall, the reasoning of the CJEU in this case and in Altun will be familiar to specialists of the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice. Here, the principle of mutual trust is derived from the principle of sincere cooperation enshrined in Art. 4(3) TEU rather than from the principle of mutual recognition of judgments of Art.67(3) TFUE but its function as an interpretative imperative is the same. Similarly, the CJEU accepted in Altun that mutual trust is not without limit and that there may be exceptional circumstances in which a court is allowed to disregard a legal document issued in another Member State.

In a recently reported ruling (No 423/2018, in Chronicles of Private Law, 2019, p. 204), the Greek Supreme Court (Άρειος Πάγος) addressed the thorny issues of choice of forum and choice of law agreements relating to agency and distribution. The judgment basically follows the path paved by the CJEU. However, its analysis is noteworthy, allowing hopes for a shift in the established course of action.

The Facts

A Dutch company entered into a distribution agreement with a Greek company in 2004, followed by an agency agreement in 2007. The agreements included a choice of forum clause granting exclusive jurisdiction to the courts of Amsterdam and a clause stating that the contracts were governed by Dutch law. The Dutch principal terminated the agreements in 2009.

The Greek company started litigation in Athens. The defendant challenged the jurisdiction of the Greek courts on the basis of the choice of court clause. Both first and second instance Greek courts found they lacked jurisdiction.

The Grounds of Appeal

The claimant filed a (final) appeal before the Supreme Court, arguing that the choice of forum clause was abusive, and contrary as such to public policy. The Greek company submitted, among other things, that it had no real negotiating power with the principal, and that the choice of law clause resulted in the circumvention of Greek mandatory provisions.

The Ruling

The Supreme Court confirmed the lower courts’ finding and dismissed the case for want of jurisdiction. The forum selection clause, the Court noted, was agreed upon as a result of sound negotiations, with no abuse on the part of the Dutch company. A draft of the agreement had been previously submitted to the claimant, who had sufficient time to reflect and did not raise any objections or reservations.

The Supreme Court emphasized that the Greek company had a high turnover and significant profits. Its representatives, the Court noted, were familiar with travelling abroad for discussions and negotiations; hence, any difficulty and increased costs associated with the exclusive jurisdiction of Dutch courts did not make litigation before the latter courts impossible or unreasonably burdensome.

The combined choice of Dutch courts and Dutch law, the Court added, did not affect the validity of the choice of forum clause. A circumvention of Greek mandatory law provisions was not established. No abuse of the principal’s position was evidenced. In any case, Dutch law could not be regarded as completely alien to the case, given that the principal is in fact based in the Netherlands.

The Supreme Court finally approved the Athens Court of Appeal decision not to turn to the choice of law clause for the purposes of assessing the validity of the choice of forum agreement. It relied for this on the ruling of the CJEU in Trasporti Castelletti, where the Court of Justice stated that “the national court seised should be able readily to decide whether it has jurisdiction on the basis of the rules of the [Brussels] Convention [of 1968, the predecessor of the Brussels I bis Regulation], without having to consider the substance of the case”, adding that the “substantive rules of liability applicable in the chosen court must not affect the validity of the jurisdiction clause”.

Comment

In a nutshell, the show must go on. In spite of the scepticism voiced in legal scholarship, the foundations of the CJEU ruling in Trasporti Castelletti are too hard to shake, let alone demolish.

Still, the Supreme Court did not refuse to examine the public policy defence raised by the agency, and in fact accepted to discuss the issue of the abusive character of the clause. One may not agree with the result; however the sheer fact that the court dared the step, raises ambitions for a further scrutiny in future cases.

I finish with a suggestion for further reading: Many esteemed colleagues have published notes on the above and subsequent rulings of the Court which followed suit. One of the most recent articles dealing extensively with the issue was authored by Matthias Weller, whose analysis gave me ample food for thought [Matthias Weller, Choice of court agreements under Brussels Ia and under the Hague convention: coherences and clashes, Journal of Private International Law, 2007, 13:1, 91-129, in particular pp. 107-109].

Due to the circumstances, all oral hearings at the CJEU scheduled until 25 May 2020 are postponed to a later date.

Regarding private international law, the judgment in C-641/18, Rina, a request for a preliminary ruling referred by the District Court of Genoa (Italy), will be read on 7 May  2020. The case requires the Court to address the relationship between a customary principle of international law on international immunity and Regulation No 44/2001 (Brussels I). The Court should as well reflect on the extent the answer to that question may be influenced by the interest in ensuring access to the courts. In his opinion of 14 January 2020, AG Szpunar concluded that

Article 1(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 is to be interpreted as meaning that an action for damages brought against private-law bodies in respect of classification and certification activities carried out by those bodies as delegates of a third State, on behalf of that State and in its interests, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ within the meaning of that provision.

The principle of customary international law concerning the jurisdictional immunity of States does not preclude the application of Regulation No 44/2001 in proceedings relating to such an action.

Rina will be a 1^st Chamber decision (Bonichot, Silva de Lapuerta, Safjan, Bay Larsen, Toader), with judge Camelia Toader as juge rapporteur.

Ms Toader is also the reporting judge in joined cases C-267/19 PARKING – C-323/19, Interplastics, to be released on the same day. The cases correspond to identical requests for a preliminary ruling and for interpretation of the grounds of the CJUE’s judgments of 9 March 2017, Zulfikarpašić (C-484/15) and Pula Parking (C-551/15). The referring court (Commercial Court, Zagreb, Croatia) explains that

Although the Court’s position is clear and unequivocal as to the fact that, in Croatia, notaries are not entitled to issue writs of execution based on an authentic document, that practice, which is at odds with Regulation No 1215/2012, continues. Following the decision of the Court of 9 March 2017, notaries have issued more than one million writs of execution.

Then, at the courts’ level, there is a divergent application of the CJUE’s decision in Pula Parking, in that

for the most part, [the courts and tribunals of the Republic of Croatia] consider that the decision relates exclusively to enforcement proceedings conducted by notaries in which the party against whom enforcement is sought is a natural person and national of another EU Member State.

Therefore, the Zagreb court had thought it necessary to submit a request for a preliminary ruling, in order to determine “whether natural and legal persons from Croatia, as citizens of the European Union, are on an equal footing with natural and legal persons from other EU Member States, and whether foreign legal persons are on an equal footing with foreign natural persons as regards the application of EU law in the Republic of Croatia.”

The case will be decided (without AG’s Opinion) by Judges Safjan, Toader, and Jääskinen, sitting as 6^th Chamber.

Finally, the Opinion of AG Saugmandsgaard Øe in C-59/19, Wikingerhof, will be known on 28 May 2020. For the record, the requests comes from the German Bundesgerichtshof, and a hearing had taken place last January. The CJEU has been asked to address (again) the boundaries between Article 7(1) and Article 7(2) of the Brussels I bis Regulation, in the context of an action to stop commercial practices considered to be contrary to competition law, covered by contractual provisions resulting from an abuse of a dominant position. The judgment will be a Grand Chamber one.