The School of Law of the University of Verona, Italy, in cooperation with the Center for International Legal Education (CILE) of the University of Pittsburgh, USA, will host a Summer School program in International Commercial Contracts, which will take place on June 3-6, 2014 at the School of law of the University of Verona.

The Summer School aims at providing participants with an in-depth understanding of drafting, managing and litigating international contracts. The course will deal with the different sources of law applicable to international contracts, relevant model contract clauses and selected types of contracts of particular relevance in international practice.

Target group and prerequisites for admission: The School is addressed to legal professionals and other business operators involved in international contract practice, but also open to 2nd-level degree and PhD students. A very good level of English is a fundamental prerequisite for admission.

Programme

The Law & Economics of International Contracts / International Sales Law
C. Gillette, NYU Law School

The Law Applicable to International Contracts / Case-Law on International Sales
F. Ferrari, University of Verona, NYU Law School

Transaction Planning Using Rules of Jurisdiction
R. Brand, University of Pittsburg School of Law

Negotiating and Drafting International Contracts
M. Torsello, University of Verona

International Commercial Arbitration
C. Giovannucci Orlandi, University of Bologna

For further information, please contact segreteria.master@ateneo.univr.it, cile@law.pitt.edu, or the Director of the course, Prof. Marco Torsello, at: marco.torsello@univr.it.

Deadline for registration: May 15, 2014. Registration fees: € 730,00.

The fourth issue of 2013 of the Dutch journal on Private International Law Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht includes two contributions on the Commission Recommendation on Collective Redress and an article on the obligations of parties with regard to pleading and contesting jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation in the Netherlands.

Astrid Stadler, ‘The Commission’s Recommendation on common principles of collective redress and private international law issues’, p. 483-488. The abstract reads:

For its new policy on collective redress the European Commission has chosen the form of a mere ‘Recommendation’ instead of a binding directive or regulation with respect to the violation of (consumer) rights granted under EU law. The Recommendation provides some basic principles on collective redress instruments which should be taken into account by the Member States when implementing injunctive or compensatory collective redress mechanisms. There is, however, no obligation for the Member States to implement such procedural tools. Despite the attempt at establishing common principles, the European legislature thus seems to accept a heterogeneous landscape of collective redress in Europe and has missed the opportunity to provide rules on international jurisdiction, recognition and the applicable law particularly designed for cross-border mass litigation. As a consequence forum shopping becomes even more important for plaintiffs in mass damage cases.

Mick Baart, ‘Implications of Commission Recommendation 2013/39 on common principles for collective redress. Can safeguards limit the potential for abuse without compromising the realization of policy goals?’, p. 489-498. The abstract reads:

The recent publication of Recommendation 2013/39 seeks to establish a common European approach to collective redress. In response to concerns that collective procedures may introduce opportunities for abuse, the European Commission included a number of procedural safeguards. However, can these safeguards limit the potential for abuse without hindering the achievement of policy goals? This article evaluates this question from the perspective of group formation since opt-out procedures have traditionally been perceived as an important factor in abusive practices. The Recommendation accordingly considers the use of opt-in procedures to be an essential safeguard against abuse. Nonetheless, the rejection of opt-out procedures appears to entail an inherent paradox as it reduces the potential for abuse but simultaneously presents significant obstacles to the effectiveness of collective procedures. Moreover, it could have unintended consequences for questions of private international law as Member States that actively use opt-out mechanisms are not obliged to comply with a non-binding Recommendation.

Jacques de Heer, ‘De stelplicht van eiser en gedaagde in geschillen voor de Nederlandse rechter over internationale bevoegdheid op grond van de EEX-Verordening’, p. 499-507. The English abstract reads:

In cross-border contentious proceedings, the plaintiff only has a conditional obligation to show that the court in which proceedings are brought has jurisdiction. This condition follows from Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation, which deals with jurisdiction through submission to the forum. When the defendant wishes to contest the jurisdiction of the court, he is under no immediate obligation to argue why this is so. However, if the factual arguments put forward by the plaintiff to found the jurisdiction of (for example) the Dutch court remain uncontested, this court has to consider these facts when deciding on its jurisdiction. In so deciding, the court is not bound by the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels I Regulation as mentioned by the defendant. When the defendant only raises a defence of concurrent proceedings in another Member State, he is obliged to immediately state the relevant facts.

Many thanks to Felix Koechel (MPI Luxembourg) for the hint.

The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law will host a symposium in memory of Giuseppe Tarzia (28.12.1930 – 23.2.2005), Professor emeritus at the Università degli Studi di Milano, on 9 May 2014.  On this occasion the personal library of Giuseppe Tarzia as an extension of the Institute’s library will be inaugurated.

To view the final program of the event in French and Italian, please visit the Institute’s website.

The registration is open until 2 May 2014.

A Liber Amicorum for Ulrich Magnus was published in February 2014. It contains a number of contributions on private international law.

III. Internationales Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht

• Jürgen Basedow, Zuständigkeitsderogation, Eingriffsnormen und ordre public
• Peter Behrens, Connecting factors for the determination of the proper law of companies
• Ronald A. Brand, The Evolving Private International Law / Substantive Law Overlap in the European Union
• Franco Ferrari, Forum Shopping: A Plea for a Broad and Value-Neutral Definition
• Axel Flessner, Rechtsvergleichung und Kollisionsrecht – Neue Akzente in einer alten Beziehung
• Robert Freitag, Halbseitig ausschließliche Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen unter der Brüssel I-VO
• Axel Halfmeier, Transnationale Delikte vor nationalen Gerichten oder: Wie weiter nach dem Ende der amerikanischen Rechtshegemonie?
• Eva-Maria Kieninger, Grenzenloser Verbraucherschutz?
• Oliver L. Knöfel, Staats- und Amtshaftung im Europäischen Internationalen Privatrecht
• Harald Koch, Kollisionsrecht und Auslandsbezug: Wie international ist das IPR?
• Dieter Martiny, Zur Einordnung und Anknüpfung der Ansprüche und der Haftung Dritter im Internationalen Schuldrecht
• Thomas Pfeiffer, Die Haager Prinzipien des internationalen Vertragsrechts –Ausgewählte Aspekte aus der Sicht der Rom I-VO
• Kurt Siehr, Global Jurisdiction of Local Courts and Recognition of Their Judgments Abroad
• Martin Taschner, Vertragliche Schuldverhältnisse der Europäischen Union – Zuständigkeit und anwendbares Recht
• Peter Winkler von Mohrenfels, Kündigungsschutz und Kleinbetriebsklausel im internationalen Arbeitsrecht – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des österreichischen Kündigungsschutzrechts
• Wolfgang Wurmnest, Die Einbeziehung kartellrechtlicher Ansprüche in Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen

The full table of contents is available here.

by Michal Kocur and Jan Kieszczynski of Wozniak Kocur, a Polish litigation boutique law firm.

The Appellate Court in Lublin, Poland passed two separate decisions that stand by the principle that a challenge to international jurisdiction must be clear, substantiated and made right away in the defendant’s first appearance before the court.

In decisions taken on 26 March 2013 (file no. I ACz 151/13) and on 8 October 2013 (file no. I ACz746/13), the court found that raising a defense of lack of jurisdiction based on an arbitration clause cannot be treated as contesting the court’s international jurisdiction within the meaning of Article 24 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 (Brussels I).

The decision is particularly noteworthy as it deals with a controversial issue, as yet undecided by the Court of Justice of the European Union (ECJ).

Disputed jurisdiction

Both of the cases concerned the same dispute that emerged between two parties, a Polish and a French company, concerning the performance of a contract for the international sale of goods (Contract). The Polish company twice sued the French company for payment in the Polish courts. Both cases followed a similar pattern of procedural history, which will be outlined below.

In its statement of defense, the French company filed a motion to dismiss the case, taking the position that the dispute fell within the scope of the arbitration clause contained in the Contract. Apart from raising that jurisdictional defense, the defendant also went into the details of the merits of the case, rejecting the Polish company’s claim for payment. The Polish court rejected the French company’s jurisdictional defense. The court found that the arbitration agreement contained an exception that allowed the claimant to file a claim in a national court.

The French company appealed that decision. In its appeal, for the first time in the proceedings, the defendant raised a defense specifically invoking the lack of jurisdiction of Polish courts, and filed a motion to dismiss the case on those grounds. The defendant argued that the place of delivery of goods had changed, in light of which French courts had jurisdiction to hear the case, not Polish courts.

In response to the above, the claimant argued that the defendant’s challenge to the jurisdiction of Polish courts had not been presented in the statement of defense, and was therefore overdue.According to the claimant, as the Polish courts’ international jurisdiction was not contested in due time, the dispute was submitted to Polish courts in accordance with Article 24 Brussels I. Submission under Article 24 Brussels I exists when a defendant enters an appearance before the court, unless the appearance was entered in order to contest international jurisdiction:

Apart from jurisdiction derived from other provisions of this Regulation, a court of a Member State before which a defendant enters an appearance shall have jurisdiction. This rule shall not apply where appearance was entered to contest the jurisdiction, or where another court has exclusive jurisdiction by virtue of Article 22.

The defendant disagreed. It argued that the statement of defense contained a jurisdictional defense based on the arbitration agreement, and that this defense alone was sufficient to properly contest international jurisdiction in the meaning of Article 24 Brussels I.

Inequality of objections

Read more