Recently, the September/October  issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was published.

Here is the contents:

• Marc-Philippe Weller: “Anknüpfungsprinzipien im Europäischen Kollisionsrecht: Abschied von der „klassischen“ IPR-Dogmatik?” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 Friedrich Carl v. Savigny has influenced modern private international law. His method is known as the “classic” private international law doctrine. Its principles are the international harmony of decisions and the neutrality of private international law, embodied in the principle of the most significant relationship.

However, in European private international law a slight paradigm change concerning the structure of the conflict of law rules can be detected from a classic point of view. The conflict of law rules of the Rome I and Rome II Regulation are prevalently oriented according to the material principles of the European Union such as the promotion of the internal market, the increase of legal security and the protection of the weaker party (e.g. consumer protection).

Nevertheless, in the event of a future codification of private international law at European level, the classic connecting principles of private international law deserve greater attention in the law making process. The Lisbon Treaty would allow such a “renaissance” of the classic private international law doctrine.

•  Dieter Martiny: “Die Kommissionsvorschläge für das internationale Ehegüterrecht sowie für das internationale Güterrecht eingetragener Partnerschaften” – the English abstract reads as follows:

On 16 March 2011 the European Commission proposed two separate Regulations, one for married couples on matrimonial property regimes and another on the property consequences of registered partnerships. A Communication of the Commission explains the approach of the proposals. While it is in principle to be welcomed that the Proposals are gender neutral and neutral regarding sexual orientation, the relationship between the intended overarching European rules with the (existent) divergent national rules for different types of marriages and partnerships raises some doubts. It is regrettable that, whereas spouses may themselves expressly choose the applicable law to a certain extent, the assets of registered partnerships are, as a rule, subject to the law of the country where the partnership was registered. In the absence of a choice of law by the spouses, similar to the Rome III Regulation – but following the immutability doctrine – the law of their common habitual residence applies in the first instance. The scope of the Proposals as to “matrimonial property” is not totally clear, nor is the role of overriding mandatory rules. Rules on jurisdiction and recognition are broadly in line with the Brussels II bis Regulation and the Succession Proposal. Many details of the recent Proposals need more clarification. However, despite a number of flaws the Proposals seem basically to be acceptable – at least for the civil law Member States.

•  Andreas Engert/Gunnar Groh: “Internationaler Kapitalanlegerschutz vor dem Bundesgerichtshof” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 In 2010, the German Federal Court handed down a number of judgments on the liability of investment service providers in an international setting. The Court faced two specific fact patterns: On the one hand, broker-dealers from the U.S. and Britain participated in a fraudulent investment scheme operated by a German asset manager through investment accounts located abroad. The question arose whether German courts had jurisdiction over the foreign defendants for aiding and abetting, and if so, which tort law governed the case. On the other hand, an investment fund from Turkey and a Swiss asset manager offered their services to investors in Germany without being licensed by the German financial services supervisor.

As regards the jurisdiction issue vis-à-vis defendants from the U.S. and Turkey, the Court concluded that foreign aiders and abettors to a tort committed in Germany can be sued in Germany. The tortfeasor’s acts were imputed to them under § 32 Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure). In relation to European defendants, the Federal Court claimed jurisdiction under art. 5 no. 3 Brussels I Regulation/Lugano Convention based on the place where the damage occurred. Because investors were almost certain to lose money on the

fraudulent scheme, the damage occurred in Germany when investors transferred their funds to a foreign account. In one case, the Court relied on its jurisdiction over consumer contracts for adjudicating a torts claim, which allowed the Court to dismiss a jurisdiction clause.

With regard to the conflicts rules on tort law, the cases were still governed by German conflicts law leading to similar issues. As a result, investors were able to rely on German tort law. Under the new Rome II Regulation, future tort claims may well qualify as culpa in contrahendo. The applicable law then depends on the law applicable to the contract itself. In this case, the special conflict rule for consumer contracts (Art. 6 Rome I Regulation) ensures that retail investors can invoke their home country’s tort law.

•  Jürgen Samtleben: “Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit und Finanztermingeschäfte – Der Schutz der Anleger vor der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit durch § 37h WpHG” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 The present article discusses the disputed provision of § 37h of the German Securities Trading Act (WpHG), according to which non-merchants are not able to enter into a valid advance arbitration agreement as regards financial services transactions. The decision of the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) at issue addressed a damages claim brought against a US broker who had, through the use of independent German financial intermediaries, secured clients for the purchase of financially risky futures. As in other cases, the BGH found the business practice of the financial intermediaries to be contrary to public policy and concluded that the broker is subject to liability for his participation in an unlawful commercial practice. The central issue, however, was the defendant’s contention that the court was bound to refer the matter to arbitration in light of an arbitration clause included in the original account agreement. Although signed only by the client, the clause arguably comported with US law, notwithstanding its failure to meet the formal requirements of Art. II of the New York Convention. As it was not clear whether the claimant could be labeled a merchant, the BGH could not make a final determination on the applicability of § 37h WpHG. Equally left open was the question whether the claimant had engaged in the financial activities in question for private purposes and thus as a consumer; in such a case the account agreement would fail to satisfy the formal requirements of § 1031(5) of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The article makes clear that the formal requirements of § 1031(5) ZPO can be overridden by a written arbitration agreement that otherwise satisfies the New York Convention. In contrast, § 37h WpHG constitutes a matter of (missing) subjective arbitrability which, according to the Convention, is to be determined under national law. Whereas § 37h WpHG in its current version only protects non-merchants, this limitation is overly narrow and should be abandoned so that all investors acting in a private capacity are protected from the application of an arbitration clause.

Read more

With thanks to one of our readers, here is a decision that may be of interest.  The New York Court of Appeals recently decided a case that adresses many of the basic tort fact patterns that that started the way to the “conflicts revolution” in the 1950s and
1960s.  Interestingly, the court is split on how to decide some of these issues, even after all these years.

The decision in AC v CS 2011 2 SA 360 (WCC) (Western Cape High Court, Cape Town) deals with the recognition in South Africa of a civil partnership registered in the United Kingdom under the Civil Partnership Act, 2004. Gamble J obiter referred to the proprietary consequences of such partnership in South Africa.

The South African Civil Union Act 17 of 2006 makes provision for civil unions between couples of the same or different sex. The parties may choose whether their civil union must be known as a marriage or a civil partnership (section 11 of the act). The UK Civil Partnership Act, 2004, makes provision for same-sex couples only and a civil partnership is not known as a marriage. Notwithstanding these differences, the court recognises the UK civil partnership as a civil union for the purposes of South African (private international) law. Although the court does not refer to the process of classification, the decision attests to an enlightened lex fori approach to characterisation. (On classification in South(ern) African private international law, see Forsyth Private International Law (2003) 68-81 and Neels “Falconbridge in Africa” 2008 Journal of Private International Law 167.)

In South African private international law, both the formal and the inherent validity of a marriage are governed by the law of the place of the conclusion of the marriage (the lex loci celebrationis). (See Forsyth 263-265.) This decision is the first in South Africa in which the same conflicts rule is applied in respect of the inherent validity of a foreign civil partnership. As the partnership is inherently valid in terms of English law, it is valid for the purposes of South African (private international) law.

The court finds that the grounds for divorce and payment of maintenance inter partes are governed by the relevant provisions in the Civil Union Act, which refer to the arrangements in the Divorce Act 70 of 1979. This is not the position, at least not in the first place, because the word “marriage” in the Divorce Act may be interpreted to include foreign partnerships, as the court implies, but because these issues are governed by the lex fori (namely the Civil Union Act referring to the Divorce Act) (see Forsyth 286).

The parties were probably both domiciled in South Africa at the time that the partnership was registered in the UK (although one party was a UK citizen). As they did not conclude an ante-nuptial contract, the partnership/civil union would according to South African law have been concluded in community of property. It was unnecessary for the court to determine which law applied in respect of the proprietary consequences of the partnership/civil union as the parties concluded a deed of settlement in this regard.

The Roman-Dutch rule referred the proprietary consequences of a marriage to the law of the domicile of the husband at the time of the conclusion of the marriage (see Sperling v Sperling 1975 3 SA 707 (A)). This rule is today unconstitutional on the basis of the equality principle and also because it does not make provision for same-sex marriages/civil unions/civil partnerships. The court in casu comes to the same conclusion but does not refer to other case law where the same point was already made: see Fourie v Minister of Home Affairs 2005 1 All SA 273 (SCA) par 125 n 112; Sadiku v Sadiku case no 30498/06 (26 January 2007) (T) per www.saflii.org, discussed by Neels and Wethmar-Lemmer “Constitutional values and the proprietary consequences of marriage in private international law – introducing the lex causae proprietatis matrimonii” 2008 TSAR 587.

Gamble J suggests that the legislature address the position in respect of the patrimonial consequences of same-sex marriages/civil unions/partnerships. This does not seem to be necessary. The courts have the inherent power to develop the common law in conformity with constitutional values (sec 8(3)(a), 39(2) and 173 of the Constitution of the Republic of South Africa of 1996). In this regard they should take note of the relevant academic opinion: see Stoll and Visser “Aspects of the reform of German (and South African) private international family law” 1989 De Jure 330; Schoeman “The connecting factor for proprietary consequences of marriage” 2001 TSAR 72; Schoeman “The South African conflict rule for proprietary consequences of marriage: learning from the German experience” 2004 TSAR 115; Schoeman “The South African conflict rule for proprietary consequences of marriages: the need for reform” 2004 IPRax 65; Neels “Revocation of wills in South African private international law” 2007 ICLQ 613; and Neels and Wethmar-Lemmer supra.

We have indicated before that we support the five-step model proposed by Stoll and Visser supra (Neels and Wethmar-Lemmer supra). The proposal ends the infringement of the equality principle and also provides a solution for same-sex marriages/civil unions/partnerships. Here it follows, adapted to make provision for civil unions and similar institutions:

In the absence of an express or tacit choice of law in an ante-nuptial contract, the proprietary consequences of a marriage, a civil union or similar institution (eg a civil partnership) must be governed by the law of the country of the common domicile of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the marriage, civil union or similar institution. If they did not have such a common domicile, the law of the country of the common habitual residence of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the marriage, civil union or similar institution must apply. If they did not have such a common habitual residence, the law of the country of the common nationality of the parties at the time of the conclusion of the marriage, civil union or similar institution must apply. If they did not have such a common nationality, the law of the country with which both spouses were most closely connected at the time of the marriage must apply.

The last issue of the Revue critique de droit international privé was just released. It contains three articles and several casenotes. The full table of contents can be found here.

In a first article, Pascal de Vareilles Sommieres, who is a professor of law at Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne University, explores the relationship between international mandatory rules and policy (Lois de police et politiques legislatives). The English asbtract reads:

Still somewhat ill-defined the role of legal policy, which is irrelevant in the determination of ordinary private law rules in Savigny’s methodology, is of course a decisive element in characterization of mandatory rules, as a definition of their scope. In conflict of laws, policy considerations occupy a more significant place when the mandatory rule emanates from the legal system of the forum then when it is a foreign rule. In conflict of jurisdiction, policy requirements of varying intensity have to compose with other considerations of judicial administration, so that each mandatory rule exerts its own specific impact, whether on the jurisdiction of the court or on the status of foreign judgments.

In the second article, Petra Hammje, who is a professor of law at the University of Cergy-Pontoise, offers a survey of the new Rome III Regulation (Le nouveau reglement (UE) no 1259/2010 du Conseil du 20 décembre 2010 mettant en oeuvre une coopération renforcée dans le domaine de la loi applicable au divorce et à la séparation de corps).

Finally, in the last article, Horatia Muir Watt, who is a professor of law at the Paris Institute of Political Science (Science Po) discusses the implications of the Chevron litigation (Chevron, l’enchevetrement des fors. Un combat sans issue ?). I am grateful to the author for providing me with the following abstract:

A decade after the dismissal of their claim by US courts for forum non conveniens and the victims’ return to Ecuador, a new act of the Chevron (Texaco) drama began when the local court gave judgment in early 2011 against the multinational for its role in the environmental pollution in the Amazon forest region and its harmful consequences for the health of its indigenous population. Various strategies are currently being deployed internationally with a view to resist, neutralise or invalidate this judgment (in the form of a worldwide anti-suit injunction, a RICO action, or the invocation of international investment law) before the US court or in international arbitration. In this complex game where multiple fora make simultaneous claim to autority and engage in its mutual neutralisation, the reassuring traditional liberal model of international legal order is clearly out-of-step. The lesson of Chevron case is that it is time to quit the Westphalian perspective so that private international law may assume a useful role in global governance.

Subscribers of Dalloz can download the Revue here.