Recently, the May/June issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was published.
Here is the contents:
- Catrin Behnen: “Die Haftung des falsus procurator im IPR – nach Geltung der Rom I- und Rom II-Verordnungen” – the English abstract reads as follows:
The extensive reform of the international law of obligations by the Rome I and Rome II-Regulations raises the question of the future classification of the liability of the falsus procurator under international private law. Since the new regulations entered into force, the problem of classification has not only arisen at national law level, but also at the level of European Union Law. Most importantly, it must be questioned, whether the new Regulations contain overriding specifications regarding the classification of the liability of the falsus procurator that are binding for the Member States. This article discusses the applicable law on the liability of an unauthorised agent and thereby addresses the issue of whether normative requirements under European Union law are extant. Furthermore, the Article illustrates how the proposed introduction of a separate conflict of laws rule on the law of agency in the Draft Rome I-Regulation impinges on this question, even though this rule was eventually not adopted.
- Ansgar Staudinger: “Geschädigte im Sinne von Art. 11 Abs. 2 EuGVVO” – the English abstract reads as follows:
The present essay discusses the decision of the European Court of Justice in the case of Voralberger Gebietskrankenkasse/WGV-Schwäbische Allgemeine – C-347/08. In this case, the court was concerned with the question whether, under Article 11 Paragraph 2 of the Council Regulation (EC) No. 44/2001 of 22 December 2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters a social insurance agency acting as the statutory assignee of the rights of the directly injured party has the right to bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts of its own Member State. The ECJ denies such a privilege, which is the correct decision in the author’s opinion, who, after having reviewed the ECJ’s judgement, also discusses the assignability of the decision to other conventions. Afterwards he raises the question to what extent legal entities, heirs or persons who claim compensation for immaterial damages, damages resulting of shock or alimony are allowed to sue the injuring party’s insurer at their own local forum.
- Maximilian Seibl: “Verbrauchergerichtsstände, vorprozessuale Dispositionen und Zuständigkeitsprobleme bei Ansprüchen aus c.i.c.” – the English abstract reads as follows:
The article firstly deals with the question as to whether and to what extent international jurisdiction can be affected by pre-trial dispositions regarding the asserted claim by the parties to a lawsuit. Secondly, it examines the consequences resulting from the new EC Regulations Rome I and Rome II to the classification of claims out of culpa in contrahendo in terms of international jurisdiction. The background of the article consists of two decisions, one by the OLG (Higher Regional Court) Frankfurt/Main and one by the OLG München. The former concerned a case in which the defendant had pursued commercial resp. professional activities in the Member State of the consumer’s domicile in accordance with Art. 15 sec. 1 lit. c) of the Brussels I Regulation at the time he concluded a contract with a consumer, but had ceased to do so before he was sued for damages in connection with the very contract. The latter – against which an appeal has meanwhile been dismissed by the BGH (German Federal High Court of Justice), cf. BGH, 10.2.2010, IV ZR 36/09 – concerned a case in which the party of a consumer contract had assigned his claim based on culpa in contrahendo to the plaintiff, so that the plaintiff could file a lawsuit against the other party of the contract. Here the question arose as to whether or not the jurisdiction norm of § 29a ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure) – which provides a special forum for cases concerning consumer contracts negotiated away from business premises – was also applicable, if the plaintiff was not the person who had concluded the contract. The OLG München negated this question. Apart from that the court decided that jurisdiction in this case could not be based on § 29 ZPO which provides a special forum at the place of the performance of the contract, either. This part of the decision gives reason to the examination as to whether or not all claims based on culpa in contrahendo can still be subsumed under § 29 ZPO. Since these claims are now subject to Art. 12 of the Rome II Regulation, it appears to be doubtful whether the traditional German classification of culpa in contrahendo as a contractual claim in terms of jurisdiction can be upheld.
- Ivo Bach: “Die Art und Weise der Zustellung in Art. 34 Nr. 2 EuGVVO: autonomer Maßstab versus nationales Zustellungsrecht” – the English abstract reads as follows:
Article 34 (2) Brussels I in principle allows courts to deny recognition and enforcement of a foreign (default) judgment when the defendant was not served with the document which instituted the proceedings “in a sufficient time and in such way as to enable him to arrange for his defence”. As an exception to this principle, courts must not deny recognition and enforcement if the defendant failed to challenge the judgment in the country of origin. In its decision of 21 January 2010, the German Bundesgerichtshof (BGH) dealt with both aspects of Art. 34 (2) Brussels I. Regarding the defendant’s obligation to challenge the judgment, the BGH – rightfully – clarified that the obligation exists even when the defendant does not gain knowledge of the judgment before the enforcement proceedings. In such a case the defendant may request a stay of the enforcement proceedings while challenging the judgment in the country of origin. Regarding the time and manner of the service, the BGH relied on the formal service requirements as provided in the German code of civil procedure (ZPO) – Germany being the country where service was effected. The latter part of the decision calls for criticism. In this author’s opinion, in interpreting Art. 34 (2) Brussels I courts should not rely on national rules, but rather should look to autonomous criteria. As regards the manner of service, such autonomous criteria may be taken from the minimum standards-catalogue in Arts. 13 and 14 EEO.
- Rolf A. Schütze: “Der gewöhnliche Aufenthaltsort juristischer Personen und die Verpflichtung zur Stellung einer Prozesskostensicherheit nach § 110 ZPO” – the English abstract reads as follows:
Under § 110 ZPO (German Code of Civil Procedure) the court – on application of the defendant – has to make an order for security for costs if the claimant is resident abroad but not resident in an EU or EWR Member State. The ratio of this provision is that the defendant who successfully defends a baseless claim should be able to enforce a cost order against the claimant. Residence means the place where a person habitually and normally resides. The decision of the Oberlandesgericht Munich rules that a company (or other legal entity) is ordinarily resident in a place if its centre of management is at that place. Whilst the former Reichsgericht and the Bundesgerichtshof rule that the amount of the security must cover the possible claim of the defendant for recompensation of costs for all possible instances, the Oberlandesgericht Munich states that only the costs for the current instance and the appeal up to the time when the defendant can file a new application for security can be included in the calculation. The decision in both of its aspects is in accordance with the ratio of § 110 ZPO.
- Peter Mankowski/Friederike Höffmann: “Scheidung ausländischer gleichgeschlechtlicher Ehen in Deutschland?” – the English abstract reads as follows:
Same-sex marriages are on the rise if seen from a comparative perspective. In contrast, German constitutional law strictly reserves the notion of “marriage” to a marriage celebrated between man and woman. This must also have its impact in German PIL. Same-sex marriages are treated like registered partnerships and subjected to the special conflicts rule in Arts. 17b EGBGB, not to the conflicts rules governing proper marriage as contained in Art. 13–17 EGBGB. Hence, a proper divorce of a same-sex marriage can as such not be obtained in Germany but ought to be substituted with the dissolution of the registered partnership inherent in the so-called “marriage”. Although theoretically a principle of recognition might be an opportunity (if one succumbs to the notion of such principle at all), the limits of such recognition would be rather strict in Germany nonetheless.
- Alexander R. Markus/Lucas Arnet: “Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung in einem Konnossement” – the English abstract reads as follows:
In its decision 7 Ob 18/09m of 8 July 2009 the Austrian Supreme Court of Justice (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH), judged as substance of the case, the validity of an agreement conferring jurisdiction incorporated in a bill of lading, its character as well as its applicability to a civil claim for damages resulting from a breach of the contract of carriage on which the bill of lading was based. Aside from that, questions concerning the relation between the Lugano-Convention (LC) and the Brussels I Regulation arise in this judgement. An agreement conferring jurisdiction included in a bill of lading issued unilaterally by the carrier fulfils the requirements established in art. 17 par. 1 lit. c LC since in the international maritime trade the incorporation of agreements conferring jurisdiction in bills of lading can clearly be considered to be a generally known and consolidated commercial practice. Concerning the (non-)exclusivity of the agreement conferring jurisdiction (art. 17 par. 1/par. 4 LC) the OGH makes a distinction from its earlier case law and bases the decision on the European Court of Justices judgement of 24 June 1986, case 22/85, Rudolf Anterist ./. Credit Lyonnais. According to the in casu applicable Swiss Law the prorogatio fori in the bill of lading covers the contract of carriage as well, although in principle the contract does not depend on the bill of lading. Lastly, to identify the relation between the LC and the Brussels I Regulation, the analogous application of art. 54b par. 1 LC is decisive.
- Götz Schulze: “Vorlagebeschluss zur intertemporalen Anwendung der Rom II-VO” – the English abstract reads as follows:
The Engl. High Court in Homawoo v. GMF has referred the question concerning the interpretation of Art. 31 and 32 of the Rome II-Regulation to the European Court of Justice for ay Preliminary Ruling according to Art. 267 TFEU. Judge Slade recommends to specify Art. 31 Rome II-Regulation (entry into force) by the date of application on 11 January 2009 set out in Art. 32 Rome II-Regulation. Judge Tomlinson in Bacon v. Nacional Suiza prefers a strict literal interpretation with an entry into force on 20 August 2007 and a procedural understanding of Art. 32 Rome II-Regulation.
- Bettina Heiderhoff: “Neues zum gleichen Streitgegenstand im Sinne des Art. 27 EuGVVO” – the English abstract reads as follows:
The Austrian High Court (OGH) found that two actions do not involve the same cause of action when an identical claim is based on two different rules from different national laws and these rules stipulate different requirements. The decision is in conformity with the Austrian dogma that identity of the actions and lis pendens do not apply where a party bases a second claim on new facts. In other words, the identity of the cause of action depends on the facts presented to the court, unlike in Germany where the identity depends on the objective factual situation, no matter whether the claimant has presented all facts to the court in the first action or not. This Austrian point of view threatens uniform jurisdiction in the EU. It allows repetitive actions in different member states and, consequently, may lead to contradicting judgements. It encourages forum shopping. Therefore, it is a pity that the OGH did not present the case to the ECJ under Art. 267 TFEU.
- Carl Friedrich Nordmeier: “Divergenz von Delikts- und Unterhaltsstatut bei tödlich verlaufenden Straßenverkehrsunfällen: österreichischer Trauerschadensersatz und brasilianisches pretium doloris vor dem Hintergrund der Europäisierung des Kollisionsrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:
Claims for compensation based on the loss of a maintenance debtor in transborder cases demand the coordination of the law applicable to tort and the law applicable to maintenance obligations. In the present case of the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof), concerning a fatal traffic accident in Austria, whose victims were Brazilian nationals, Austrian tort law and Brazilian maintenance law had to be applied. From the Austrian perspective, the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents has priority over the national conflict of law rules and over the Rome II Regulation. This raises questions relating to the possibility of a choice of law in cases that fall within the scope of application of the Convention. Austrian law does not provide a pension for the compensation of grief suffered by relatives of a victim of a fatal traffic accident. A pretium doloris of the Brazilian law is to be qualified as a question of tort and was rightly not awarded.
- Arkadiusz Wowerka: “Polnisches internationales Gesellschaftsrecht im Wandel” – the English abstract reads as follows:
The Polish applicable international private law provides no specific regulations on the international private law of companies. Also the judicature has up till now delivered no decisions in this matter. The essential principles of the international private law of the companies were developed by the doctrine. Within the frame of the planned reform of the international private law the government has presented the draft of a new regulation on the international private law which, with its provisions on the legal entities and organised entities, should fill the current gap in the subject area. The present article gives an overview on the autonomous international private law of the companies and its current evolution, dealing with the issues of the definition of the company, rules for determination of the law governing the companies, scope of the law governing the companies and finally the question of recognition of companies, in each case with references to the proposals of the government draft regulation.
- Christel Mindach: “Anerkennung und Vollstreckung von Drittlandsschiedssprüchen in Handelssachen in den GUS-Mitgliedstaaten” – the English abstract reads as follows:
After the collapse of the Soviet Union, the newly founded States, establishing the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), had to build a completely new legal system. Quite naturally the legislation of international commercial arbitration played a secondary role during the first years of transformation, apart from the CIS Members Russia, Ukraine and Belarus. In the course of legislation process the most CIS States couldn’t base on own legal traditions or experiences in this field. This insufficient situation changed in principle only just, when these States decided about the accession to the New York Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards. With the exemption of Tajikistan and Turkmenistan the New York Convention came in force for all CIS Members in the meantime. The following article describes in a concise manner some of the fundamental requirements for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards in commercial matters rendered in the territory of a State other than a CIS State under the appropriate national laws of CIS States including the procedure of compulsory enforcement.
- Erik Jayme on the conference on the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, which took place in Vienna on 21 October 2010: “Der Verordnungsvorschlag für ein Europäisches Erbkollisionsrecht (2009) auf dem Prüfstand – Tagung in Wien”
- Stefan Arnold: “Vollharmonisierung im europäischen Verbraucherrecht – Tagung der Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (GPR)” – the English abstract reads as follows:
On the 4th and 5th of June 2010, the Zeitschrift für Gemeinschaftsprivatrecht (Journal for EU-Private Law, JETL) and the Frankfurter Institut für das Recht der Europäischen Union (Frankfurt Institute for the Law of the European Union, FIREU) hosted a conference on „Full Harmonisation in European Consumer Law“ at the Europa-Universität in Frankfurt (Oder). Prof. Dr. Michael Stürner (Frankfurt/Oder) had invited to the conference. The speakers addressed not only the concept of full harmonisation but also the European framework for the harmonisation of Private Law and the consumer protection achieved by the the rules on Conflict of Laws. Moreover, the Draft Common Frame of Reference and the effect of full harmonisation on specific fields of law were discussed. The participants also debated the practical effects of possible full harmonisation measures.
- Erik Jayme on the congress in Palermo on the occassion of the bicentenary of Emerico Amari’s birth: “Rechtsvergleichung und kulturelle Identität – Kongress zum 200. Geburtstag von Emerico Amari (1810–1870) in Palermo”