Recently, the November/December issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was released.

It contains the following articles/case notes (including the reviewed decisions):

• Klaus Bitterich: “Vergaberechtswidrig geschlossene Verträge und internationales Vertragsrecht” – the English abstract reads as follows:

This article is concerned with the law applicable to international (works or supplies) contracts concluded by a German public authority on the basis of an unlawful award procedure or decision. In many, but not all cases there will be an express or implied choice of law agreement in favor of German law by way of reference to the German Standard Building Contract Terms “VOB/B” or, in case of a supplies contract, the “VOL/B” respectively. In the absence of choice, a contract concluded as a result of a tender procedure governed by public procurement legislation is, as the author intends to show, according to the escape clause of article 4 para. 3 of the new Rome I-Regulation No. 593/2008 governed by the law of the country where the tender procedure took place, because such a contract is more closely connected to this place than to the place where the party who is to effect the characteristic performance has his habitual residence. Thus, where German authorities are involved German law will apply to the question whether a breach of a public procurement rule is capable of affecting the validity of the contract. The relevant German provisions of substantive law state that such breach may only be invoked by means of a specific review process according to §§ 102 et seq. of the “Gesetz gegen Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen” (GWB) and, as this remedy is no longer available after the contract has been concluded, as a principle hold errors in the procurement procedure which where not subject to such review irrelevant. The only exception is § 101b GWB (replacing the former § 13 of the “Vergabeverordnung” – public procurement regulation –) declaring void contracts concluded without prior information of tenderers whose offers will not be accepted and, on the other hand, contracts concluded without a regular tender procedure. Whether this provision is an overriding mandatory provision within the meaning of article 9 para. 1 of the Rome I-Regulation and thus applicable irrespective of the law otherwise applicable to the contract is the second subject of the article at hand. The author argues that this is not the case due to its inability to effectively enforce the public procurement regime even on a national level after the contract has been concluded. It must be noted, though, that the Oberlandesgericht (OLG) Düsseldorf has taken the opposite view.

• Felix Dörfelt: “Gerichtsstand sowie Anerkennung und Vollstreckung nach dem Bunkeröl-Übereinkommen” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The International Convention on Civil Liability for Bunker Oil Pollution Damage designates international jurisdiction to the country where the damage occurred. The author discusses the various available local fori under the Brussels I-Regulation and the German ZPO, emphasizing on the forum actoris under Art. 9 para. 1 lit. b in connection with Art. 11 para. 2 Brussels I-Regulation. The gap in German local jurisdiction for damages in the exclusive economic zone can be bridged by an analogy to § 40 AtomG. Concerning the recognition and enforcement of Judgments under the convention the author criticises the possibility of “recognition-tourism” due to the global effect of recognition under Art. 10 para. 1 Bunker Oil Convention. The convention allows subsequent enforcement of judgements recognized without the possibility of a public policy exception due to the specialties of the German law on recognition and enforcement. This problem can be overcome by an extensive interpretation of “formalities” in Art. 10 para. 2 Bunker Oil Convention allowing for courts to invoke the public order exception.

• Peter Mankowski: “Die Darlegungs- und Beweislast für die Tatbestände des Internationalen Verbraucherprozess- und Verbrauchervertragsrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The burden of proof and the onus for the underlying facts in the concrete application of both conflict rules and rules on jurisdiction is one of the dark areas. The present article examines it in the field of international consumer law. The fundamental maxim is that the party who alleges that a certain rule is applicable bears the burden of stating and proving that the facts required are fulfilled. Hence, generally it is for the consumer to show that the facts required to bring the protective regime of international consumer law in operation, are present since ordinarily the consumer will allege its applicability. He who invokes an exception is liable to present the facts supporting such contention. If a choice of law or choice of court agreement is at stake the party invoking it must show that such agreement has been concluded in accordance with the chosen law.

• Carsten Müller: “Die Anwendung des Art. 34 Nr. 4 EuGVVO auf Entscheidungen aus ein- und demselben Mitgliedstaat” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 provides in Article 34 (3) and (4) that a judgment, under certain conditions, shall not be recognised if this judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the Member State in which recognition is sought (Article 34 (3)) or with an earlier judgment given in another Member State or in a third State (Article 34 (4)). The following article deals with the question whether “another Member State” in the sense of Article 34 (4) is also the Member State from which the judgment to which the earlier judgment might be opposed originates. The author comes to the conclusion that Article 34 (4) also applies to two judgments originating from the same Member State other than the Member State in which recognition is sought.

• Moritz Brinkmann: “Der Vertragsgerichtsstand bei Klagen aus Lizenzverträgen unter der EuGVVO” – the English abstract reads as follows:

In Falco Privatstiftung and Rabitsch the ECJ has excluded license agreements from the application of Article 5 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation. The author argues that the Court’s narrow understanding of the term “contract for the provision of services” is persuasive particularly in light of Article 4 (1) (b) Rome I Regulation. Regarding Article 5 (1) (a) Brussels I Regulation, the ECJ has held, that the principles which the Court previously developed in Tessili and De Bloos with respect to Article 5 (1) of the Brussels Convention are still pertinent with respect to the construction of Article 5 (1) (a) of the Brussels I Regulation. This position is not surprising as the legislative history of Article 5 (1) gives clear indications that for contracts falling under (a) the legislator wanted to retain the Tessili and De Bloos approach. In the author’s view, however, the case gives evidence for the proposition that the solution in Article 5 (1) of the Brussels I Regulation is an unsatisfying compromise as it requires for contracts other than contracts for the sale of goods or for the provision of services a determination of the applicable law. Hence, the ascertainment of jurisdiction is burdened with the potentially difficult determination of the lex causae. The author postulates that the European legislator should de lege ferenda extend the approach taken in Article 5 (1) (b) to other kinds of contracts where the place of performance of the characteristic obligation can be autonomously ascertained. With respect to license agreements this could be the jurisdiction for which the right to use the intellectual property right is granted.

• Markus Fehrenbach: “Die Zuständigkeit für insolvenzrechtliche Annexverfahren” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Even though the EC Regulation No 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings contains provisions about recognition and enforcement of judgments deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and which are closely linked with them it lacks explicit rules about international jurisdiction for these types of actions. On 12 February 2009 the ECJ ruled on the international jurisdiction on an action to set aside which was brought by the liquidator of a German main insolvency proceeding. The ECJ declared the international jurisdiction to open a main proceeding covered these actions as well. While the ECJ established an international jurisdiction for German courts, German law does not contain explicit rules about local jurisdiction. In its judgment of 19 May 2009 the German Federal Court of Justice decided that local jurisdiction is determined by the seat of the Court of Insolvency. The author analyses both judgments and agrees with the ECJ insofar as international jurisdiction for actions deriving directly from insolvency proceedings and which are closely linked with them, belong to the courts of the member state where the main proceeding was opened. He disagrees insofar as a German action to set aside is regarded as such an action. Once the international jurisdiction of the German courts is established there has to be a local jurisdiction, too. In contrast to the judgment of the German Federal Court of Justice, the local jurisdiction follows by analogy with article 102 sec. 1 para. 3 of the German Act Introducing the Insolvency Code.

Read more

The Master of arbitration and international commercial law of the university of Versailles Saint-Quentin will organize a conference on Thursday November 26th on parallel litigation.

There will be two speakers, who will speak in French. First, Gilberto Boutin, from the university of Panama, will present recent developments in the doctrines of forum non conveniens and lis pendens in South America. Then, Gilles Cuniberti, from the university of Luxembourg, will discuss parallel proceedings between courts and arbitral tribunals, with a special focus on recent European developments.

The conference will begin at 5 pm. It is free of charge. 

More details can be found here.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit recently decided the case of Applied Medical v. The Surgical Company (available here), which raised the issue whether a district court abused its discretion in denying an anti-suit injunction.  In short form, the facts were that two companies entered into a purchasing relationship that was subject to a written agreement that included a choice of law and choice of forum clause.  That clause read as follows:  “This Agreement shall be governed by and construed under the laws of the State of California.  The federal and state courts within the State of California shall have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate any dispute arising out of this Agreement.”  Subject to other clauses in the Agreement, which allowed parties to terminate the agreement and limit liability, Allied decided against renewing the agreement past 2007.  Surgical replied by asserting that it was entitled to protection under Belgian law in the form of compensation.  Applied then filed a complaint for declaratory relief against Surgical in the United States District Court for the Central District of California.  As relevant here, Applied filed a motion for summary judgment requesting that the district court “enjoin Surgical from pursuing relief in Belgium or any other non-California forum under non-California law.”  Slip op. at 14822.  The district court declined to enjoin Surgical.

On appeal, the Ninth Circuit focused on that court’s recent decision in E. & J. Gallo Winery v. Andina Licores S.A., 446 F.3d 984 (9th Cir. 2009), which held that a district court, in evaluating a request for an anti-suit injunction, must determine (1) “whether or not the parties and the issues are the same, and whether or not the first action is dispositive of the action to be enjoined;” (2) whether the foreign litigation would “frustrate a policy of the forum issuing the injunction;” and (3) “whether the impact on comity would be tolerable.”  Id. at 991, 994.  The Ninth Circuit concluded that a close reading of Gallo as applied to the facts of this case required the district court to enter an anti-suit injunction.

While the whole opinion is worth reading to understand the Gallo landscape, what is perhaps most interesting is the Ninth Circuit’s treatment of the comity issue.  The court minimizes the comity inquiry by finding that all this case involves is a contract between two sophisticated parties to litigate their case in a California forum under California law.  Slip op. at 14835-38.  As such, comity is not implicated at all, as there is no question of public international law implicated in a dispute that “involve[s] private parties concerning disputes arising out of a contract.”  Slip op. at 14837-38.  Private international lawyers will recognize in this argument a strand of the argument that private international law can be decoupled from state law in hopes of encouraging party expectations.

One might, of course, object to such a statement of comity, for it gives short shrift to the actuality that an American court has entered an order that seeks to bind what parties can do before a foreign court.  Such an action uniquely creates a conflict between sovereign powers of legislative and adjudicatory authority, and such an action necessarily brings public actors, most specifically the courts, in conflict, even though the underlying issue is one of party autonomy.

Given recent cases reports on this blog concerning the circuit split regarding anti-suit injunctions, this case might be one to watch.

There are interesting posts on this issue at EJIL: Talk! by Apo Akande and Marko Milanovic.

… an Italian Court has convicted 23 American agents (including the former head of the CIA in Milan) and 2 Italian intelligence agents for their part in the abduction and rendition of a muslim cleric Abu Omar. Abu Omar was taken from the streets of Milan to Egypt where he claimed to have been tortured. It was alleged that this act of “extraordinary rendition”  was carried out by a team of CIA agents with the collaboration of Italian intelligence agency (…) This case is of interest because it appears to be the first conviction of government agents alleged to be involved in the extraordinary rendition programme. It is also of interest because what we have is a conviction by the courts of one country of persons who are officials or agents of another government. The case therefore raises issues as to the immunity which State officials are entitled to, under international law, from the criminal jurisdiction of foreign States.

Read more here.