Dear CoL Readers,

While we are all deeply concerned about the still growing dimensions of the coronavirus pandemic, we did not want to give up working on the programme of our conference.

Thanks to the HCCH, the Bonn PIL colleagues and our distinguished speakers, there is now a fantastic programme we would like to bring to your attention in this post (see below).

Meanwhile, we will closely follow the instructions of the University of Bonn as well as the German local and federal governments and travel restrictions in other countries to see whether the conference can take place on site. We have not yet given up optimism in this respect. Yet, safety must be first. This is why we are setting up structures for a video conference via zoom in case we need it. We assume that all of you would agree to proceeding via zoom if necessary. We will take a final and corona risk-averse decision on this during July and keep you posted. Please do not hesitate to register with us (sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de) if you wish to be updated by email.

Looking forward to seeing you in Bonn in September!

***

Brexit has become reality – one more reason to think about the EU’s Judicial Cooperation with third states:

The largest proportion of EU economic growth in the 21st century is expected to arise in trade with third countries. This is why the EU is building up trade relations with many states and other regional integration communities in all parts of the world. The latest example is the EU-MERCOSUR Association Agreement concluded on 28 June 2019. With the United Kingdom’s exit of the Union on 31 January 2020, extra-EU trade with neighboring countries will further increase in importance. Another challenge for the EU is China’s “Belt and Road Initiative”, a powerful global development strategy that includes overland as well as sea routes in more than 100 states around the globe.

The increasing volume of trade with third states will inevitably lead to a rise in the number and importance of commercial disputes. This makes mechanisms for their orderly and efficient resolution indispensable. China is already setting up infrastructures for commercial dispute resolution alongside its belts and roads. In contrast, there seems to be no elaborate EU strategy on judicial cooperation in civil matters with countries outside of the Union, despite the DG Trade’s realisation that “trade is no longer just about trade”. Especially, there is no coherent plan for establishing mechanisms for the coordination of cross-border dispute resolution and the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments. This is a glaring gap in the EU’s policy making in external trade relations.

This is why the Bonn group of PIL colleagues – Moritz Brinkmann, Nina Dethloff, Matthias Lehmann, Philipp Reuss, and Matthias Weller – will host a conference on Friday and Saturday, 25 and 26 September 2020, at the University of Bonn that seeks to explore ways in which judicial cooperation in civil matters between the EU and third countries can be improved by the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention as an important driver, if not game changer, of legal certainty in cross-border commercial relations.

The list of speakers includes internationally leading scholars, practitioners and experts from the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), the European Commission (DG Trade, DG Justice), and and the German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection (Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz)

The Conference is co-hosted by the HCCH as one of the first European events for discussing the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The Conference will be further supported by the Zentrum für europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht at the University of Bonn and The International Litigation Exchange (ILEX).

The Organizers will kindly ask participants to contribute with € 100.- to the costs of the event (includes conference dinner).

Dates:

Friday, 25 September 2020, and Saturday, 26 September 2020.

Venue:

Friday:

Universitätsclub Bonn, Konviktstraße 9, D – 53113 Bonn

Saturday:

Main Auditorium (Aula), Hauptgebäude, Am Hof 21, 53113 Bonn

Registration: sekretariat.weller@jura.uni-bonn.de

Registration Fee: € 100.-

To be transferred to the following account (you will receive confirmation of your registration only after payment was booked on this account):

Bonn Conference 2020

IBAN: DE71 5001 0517 0092 1751 07

BIC:    INGDDEFF (ING-Diba Bank)

 

Programme

Friday, 25 September 2020

1.30 p.m.     Registration

2 p.m.          Welcome note

Prof Dr Wulf-Henning Roth, University of Bonn, Director of the Zentrum für Europäisches Wirtschaftsrecht (ZEW)

Dr Christophe Bernasconi, Secretary General of the HCCH (video message)

2.10 p.m.      Part 1: Chances and Challenges of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

Chairs of Part 1: Prof Dr Matthias Weller / Prof Dr Matthias Lehmann

Keynote: Hague Conference’s Perspective and Experiences

Hans van Loon, Former Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, The Hague

1. Scope of application

Prof Dr Xandra Kramer, Erasmus Universiteit Rotterdam

2. Judgments, Recognition, Enforcement

Prof Dr Wolfgang Hau, Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität Munich

Discussion

3.30 p.m.     Coffee Break

4.00 p.m.      Part II: Chances and Challenges of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

Chairs of Part 2: Prof Dr Nina Dethloff / Prof Dr Moritz Brinkmann

1. Jurisdictional filters

Prof Dr Pietro Franzina, Catholic University of Milan

2. Grounds for refusal

Prof Dr Francisco Garcimartín Alférez, University of Madrid

Discussion

5.30 p.m.     Panel Discussion: Prospects for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters between the EU and Third Countries

Chairs of Part 3: Prof Dr Matthias Weller / Prof Dr Matthias Lehmann

Colin Brown, Unit Dispute Settlement and Legal Aspects of Trade Policy, DG Trade (tbc)

Andreas Stein, Head of Unit, DG JUST – A1 “Civil Justice”

Dr Jan Teubel, German Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection

RA Dr Heiko Heppner, Attorney at Law (New York), Barrister and Solicitor Advocate (England and Wales), Chair of ILEX, Head of Dispute Resolution, Partner Dentons, Frankfurt

and perhaps more…

Discussion

7 p.m.          Conference Dinner

  

Saturday, 26 September 2020

9.00 a.m.      The context of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

Chairs of Part 4: Prof Dr Moritz Brinkmann / Prof Dr Philipp Reuss

1. Lessons from the Genesis of the Judgments Project

Dr Ning Zhao, Senior Legal Officer, HCCH

2. Relation to the HCCH 2005 Convention on Choice of Court Agreements

Prof Paul Beaumont, University of Stirling

3. Relations to the Brussels Regime / Lugano Convention

Prof Marie-Elodie Ancel, Université Paris-Est Créteil

4. Brexit…

Dr Pippa Rogerson, Reader in Private International Law, Faculty of Law, Cambridge

Discussion

11:00 a.m.    Coffee Break

11:30 a.m.    Chairs of Part 5: Prof Dr Nina Dethloff / Prof Dr Matthias Lehmann

1. South European Neighbouring and Candidate Countries

Ass. Prof Dr Ilija Rumenov, Ss. Cyril and Methodius University, Skopje, Macedonia

2. MERCOSUR

Dr Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm, Director of Internationalisation, Senior Lecturer in International Private Law, School of Law, University of Edinburgh

3. China (OBOR)

Prof Zheng (Sophia) Tang, University of Newcastle

4. International Commercial Arbitration

Jose Angelo Estrella-Faria, Senior Legal Officer UNCITRAL Secretariat, International Trade Law Division Office of Legal Affairs, United Nations, Former Secretary General of UNIDROIT

Discussion

1.30 p.m.     Closing Remarks

Dr João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, First Secretary, HCCH

 

Research demonstrates that the permanent income loss for the Asia-Pacific region, including India, from the impact of COVID-19 to be $620 billion as of March 24, 2020. It is undeniable that the pandemic has not only resulted in the loss of human health and life but has also adversely affected the Indian economy. A United Nations labour report states that the Coronavirus has impacted tens of millions of informal sector workers as of 8th April 2020, and is predicted to put around 2 billion more people at risk. The Indian economy has been severely hit since most of the Indian population consists of daily wage workers. On 24th March 2020, the Prime Minister invoked his powers under Sec.6(2)(i) of the National Disaster Management Act, 2005, to enforce a lockdown for an initial period of 21 days in the country with effect from 25th March 2020. The “total” lockdown has now been extended until 3 May 2020 and, will be treated under force majeure as per the Government order. The current scenario where India is put under what is reported to be the “world’s most stringent lockdown” (also referred to as Lockdown 2.0) has forced millions of persons out of work, with the hardest hit being the poor, including the daily wage earners and migrant workers. Besides, airports, private clinics and most other shops providing daily essentials have shut.

Drawing from the situation in other countries, India reflected on its own capacity to prevent pandemic considering the resources available in the country. This is a country of 1.3 billion people and the healthcare system in place is very fragile. The latest National Health Profile 2019, released in October 2019, shows India’s public expenditure on health has been less than 1.3% of the GDP for many years. The investment in public healthcare is one of the lowest in the world as the country is more driven towards private investment in healthcare. This will result in human cost because the treatment cost, which involves vaccines, tests and medical facilities, will be more than what most of the population will be able to afford. Looking at the lack of accessibility and affordability to medical care the Prime Minister has announced a public charitable trust under the name of ‘Prime Minister’s Citizen Assistance and Relief in Emergency Situations Fund’ (PM CARES Fund)’ with the Prime Minister as the Chairman of the trust. In face of such a high-risk situation, the WHO Country Office for India is working closely with the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare (MoHFW) to strengthen surveillance, build the capacity of the health system and optimize the ‘window of opportunity’ created by mandatory physical distancing in India. Even though such rampant measures have been taken, India is still not fully equipped to deal with a full-scale pandemic.

The outbreak and the consequent Government decision have resulted in an overwhelming financial/economic loss to the Indian population. People have been banned from leaving homes and supply to all ‘non-essential’ commodities has been cut-off to prevent a further spread of the deadly virus, which originated in Wuhan, China. The recent times additionally witnessed the Indian Government’s order to blacklist the 960 foreigners who participated in the Tablighi Jamaat Meetings as they became a key source for the spread of Coronavirus in India. These foreigners violated the terms of their tourist visas by attending an Islamic congregation at the Nizamuddin Market in New Delhi in March. The foreigners were found in different states all over the country and as on 2nd April, 245 COVID-19 cases and about 12 deaths in the country were found to have links with the Tablighi Jamaat Meeting.

Recently, citizens of the United States filed a class-action suit filed against the Chinese Government for damages suffered as a result of “incalculable harm” done to the plaintiffs. Whether the near future will see a similar class-action suit by Indian citizens against the Chinese Government and the 960 Tablighi Jamaat foreigners, remains to be seen.

Under India’s conflict of law rules, which remain uncodified, an Indian court can assume jurisdiction by being the place where the cause of action – in this case, the tort occurred. Sections 9 and 86 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empowers the courts in India to try all suits, which result in damage caused by negligence, including those initiated by Indian citizens against foreign entities. At the same time, India lacks any coherent mechanism to identify the applicable law that will govern damages arising from such transnational torts. Rigidly following the common law principles, India continues to hold fast to the traditional principle of ‘double actionability’ – a rule, which has long been discarded by all other common law jurisdictions including Australia and Canada.

Under the present rules, the plaintiff(s) suing before an Indian court will have to prove that the act of the Chinese government in concealing the nature of the virus and failing to take appropriate steps to contain it, was actionable under the Chinese and Indian law – upon which, the suit will be governed concurrently by the Chinese and the Indian law of tort.

Under the Indian law of torts, the plaintiffs will need to prove a breach in a duty of care on the part of the Chinese government and the Tablighi Jamaat attendees who were foreign nationals, which caused the tort of negligence. The Indian law of torts is based on the principles of Common Law as iterated in Rajkot Municipal Corpn. v. Manjulben Jayantilal Nakum (1992 ACJ 792). According to the common law principles as evolved by the House of Lords, negligence signifies failure in executing a degree of care which should have been exercised by the doer. The essentials for establishing negligence under the Indian law may be summarized as follows. Firstly, that the defendant owed a “legal” duty of care towards the plaintiff. Secondly, that there was a breach of this duty; and thirdly, that the plaintiff experienced damage (including economic loss) as a result of such breach by the defendant.

In the international realm, China’s ‘duty of care’ towards India and its citizens may be traced through the relevant provisions of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights and the International Health Regulations of 2005. Under Article 12(2)(c) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, the Chinese government was under a duty to take measures for the “(t)he prevention, treatment and control of epidemic, endemic, occupational and other diseases” for nationals and non-nationals alike. However, this provision does not extend to economic loss. In particular, China’s duty of care towards non-nationals may be recognised under the International Health Regulations of 2005 as well. As per Article 6 of the IHR, China was required to notify the WHO of the “events which may constitute a public health emergency of international concern within its territory”. Hence, China owed a legal duty of care towards its non-nationals.  This legal duty towards the non-nationals can further be extended to infer as a duty towards other countries and their nationals.

Since China failed to notify the World Health Organisation according to the International Health Regulations of 2005 within sufficient time despite the given indications towards the public health concern, it has negligently breached its duty of care towards the rest of the world.  Dr. Li Wenliang was the first to create awareness and intimate the Chinese Government about the hazardous virus. Instead of adopting effective measures, the Chinese Government reprimanded the scientist. This is depictive of the negligent conduct of the Chinese Government.

On the other hand, the legal duty of care of the 960 foreigners can be established under section 14 of the Foreigners Act, 1946 insofar they had partaken in a religious activity which violates the terms of their tourist visas. Besides, sections 6(2)(i) and 10(2)(l) of the Disaster Management Act, 2005 will also be applicable due to their failure to adhere to social distancing guidelines issued by the government in wake of the COVID-19 outbreak.

At the same time, having regard to the present principles of the Indian conflict of law, no claim before an Indian court for damages in relation to the outbreak will sustain unless the plaintiffs are simultaneously able to prove negligence on the part of the Chinese government and/or under each of the laws of tort of 960 Tablighi Jamaat attendees. Suits initiated in relation to the pandemic in India could, therefore, act as a revolutionary moment for India to ramp-up its conflict of law principles – especially in matters arising from cross-border torts.

That said, the spread of COVID -19 has undoubtedly been one of the most challenging times for the judiciary in all the countries. Countries like the Netherlands and Germany have proven its judiciary to be effective and efficient during the times of crisis by adapting to the digital mode in adjudicating disputes.  In the largest democracy of the world, India, the judiciary has always remained under challenge due to the overwhelming number of litigation matters approaching courts every day.

The humongous load of backlog along with current lockdown had come as a huge blow and stir to the judicial system in India. The Supreme Court has, thus, decided that vital matters before it would be conducting video conferencing.  The digitalisation of the judiciary has been a huge respite especially in the case of granting bails and avoiding overcrowding of the prison to control the spread of the virus. All other smaller courts (including the High Court are shut during the lockdown).

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax)“ features the following articles:

H.-P. Mansel/K. Thorn/R. Wagner: European Conflict of Law 2019: Consolidation and multilateralisation

This article provides an overview of developments in Brussels in the field of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters from January/February 2019 until November 2019. It provides an overview of newly adopted legal instruments and summarizes current projects that are presently making their way through the EU legislative process. It also refers to the laws enacted at the national level in Germany as a result of new European instruments. Furthermore, the authors look at areas of law where the EU has made use of its external competence. They discuss important decisions of the CJEU. In addition, the article looks at current projects and the latest developments at the Hague Conference of Private International Law.

B. Hess: The Abysmal Depths of the German and European Law of the Service of Documents

The article discusses a judgment of the Higher Regional Court Frankfurt on the plaintiff’s obligations under the European Service Regulation in order to bring about the suspension of the statute of limitations under § 167 of the German Code of Civil Procedure (ZPO). The court held that the plaintiff should first have arranged for service of the German statement of claim in France pursuant to Art. 5 Service Regulation because, pursuant to Art. 8(1) Service Regulation, a translation is not required. However, the article argues that, in order to comply with § 167 ZPO, the translation must not be omitted regularly. The service of the translated lawsuit shall guarantee the defendant’s rights of defense in case he or she does not understand the language of the proceedings.

H. Roth: The international jurisdiction for enforcement concerning the right of access between Art. 8 et seq. Brussel IIbis and §§ 88 et. seq., 99 FamFG

According to § 99 para. 1 s. 1 No. 1 German Act on Procedure in Family Matters and Non-Contentious Matters (FamFG), German courts have international jurisdiction for the enforcement of a German decision on the right of access concerning a German child even if the child’s place of habitual residence lies in another Member State of the Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 (EuEheVO) (in this case: Ireland). Regulation (EC) No. 2201/2003 does not take priority according to § 97 para. 1 s. 2 FamFG because it does not regulate the international jurisdiction for enforcement. This applies equivalently to the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children (KSÜ).

J. Rapp: Attachment of a share in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) by German courts

Attachment of a share in a Limited Liability Partnership (LLP) by German courts: Despite Brexit, the LLP still enjoys great popularity in Germany, especially among international law and consulting firms. Besides its high acceptance in international business transactions, it is also a preferred legal structure due to the (alleged) flexibility of English company law. In a recent judgement, the Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof) had the opportunity to examine the LLP’s legal nature in connection with the attachment of a share in a Limited Liability Partnership. The court decided that German courts have jurisdiction for an attachment order if the company has a branch and its members have a residence in Germany. By applying § 859 Code of Civil Procedure, it furthermore ruled that not the membership as such but the share of a partner in the company’s assets is liable to attachment.

U. Spellenberg: How to ascertain foreign law – Unaccompanied minors from Guinea

The Federal Court’s decision of 20 December 2017 is the first of four practically identical ones on the age of majority in Guinean law. It is contested between several Courts of Appeal whether that is 18 or 21 years. As of now, there are nine published decisions by the Court of Appeal at Hamm/Westf. and five by other Courts of Appeal. For some years now, young men from Guinea have been arriving in considerable numbers unaccompanied by parents or relatives. On arrival, these young men are assigned guardians ex officio until they come of age. In the cases mentioned above, the guardians or young men themselves seized the court to ascertain that the age of majority had not yet been reached. The Federal Court follows its unlucky theory that it must not state the foreign law itself but may verify the methods and ways by which the inferior courts ascertained what the foreign law is. Thus, the Federal court quashed the decisions of the CA Hamm inter alia for not having ordered an expert opinion on the Guinean law. The CA justified, especially in later judgments, that an expert would not have had access to more information. With regards to the rest of the judgment, the Federal Court’s arguments concerning German jurisdiction are not satisfying. However, one may approve its arguments and criticism of the CA on the questions of choice of law.

D. Martiny: Information and right to information in German-Austrian reimbursement proceedings concerning maintenance obligations of children towards their parents

A German public entity sought information regarding the income of the Austrian son-in-law of a woman living in a German home for the elderly, the entity having initially made a claim for information against the woman’s daughter under German family law (§ 1605 Civil Code; § 94 para. 1 Social Security Act [Sozialgesetzbuch] XII). German law was applicable to the reimbursement claim pursuant to Article 10 of the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations. Pursuant to § 102 of the Austrian Act on Non-Contentious Proceedings (Außerstreitverfahrensgesetz), and in accord with the inquisitorial principle, third persons like a son-in-law are also obligated to give information. The court applied this procedural rule and declared possible restrictions under Austrian or German substantive law inapplicable.

In the reverse case of an Austrian recovery claim filed in Germany, the outcome would be doubtful. While true that under German law an adjustment (Anpassung) might allow the establishment of an otherwise non-existing duty to inform, restrictions on the duty to disclose information pursuant to Austrian and German law make it difficult to justify such a claim.

M. Gernert: Effects of the Helms-Burton Act and the EU Blocking Regulation on European proceedings

For more than 20 years, each US president had made use of the possibility of suspending the application of the extraterritorial sanctions of the Helms-Burton Act, thus preventing American plaintiffs from bringing actions against foreigners before American courts for the „trafficking“ of property expropriated to Cuba. This changed as President Trump tightened economic sanctions against the Caribbean state. The first effects of this decision are instantly noticeable, but it also has an indirect influence on European court proceedings. In this article, the first proceeding of this kind will be presented, focusing on international aspects in relation to the Helms-Burton Act and the EU-Blocking-Regulation.

K. Thorn/M. Cremer: Recourse actions among third-party vehicle insurance companies and limited liability in cases of joint and several liability from a conflict of laws perspective

In two recent cases, the OGH had to engage in a conflict of laws analysis regarding recourse actions among third-party vehicle insurance companies concerning harm suffered in traffic accidents which involved multiple parties from different countries. The ECJ addressed this problem in its ERGO decision in 2016, but the solution remains far from clear. The situation is further complicated because Austria, like many European states, has ratified the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Traffic Accidents. This causes considerable differences in how the law applicable to civil non-contractual liability arising from traffic accidents is determined.

In the first decision discussed, the OGH endorsed the decision of the ECJ without presenting its own reasoning. The authors criticizes this lack of reasoning and outline the basic conflict of laws principles for the recourse actions among third-party vehicle insurance companies. The second decision discussed provides a rare example for limited liability in the case of joint and several liability. However, given that the accident in question occurred almost 20 years ago, the OGH was able to solve the problem applying merely the Convention and autonomous Austrian conflict of laws rules. The authors examine how the problem would have been solved under the Rome II Regulation.

A. Hiller: Reform of exequatur in the United Arab Emirates

In the United Arab Emirates, an extensive reform of the Code of Civil Procedure entered into force on 2 February 2019. The reform covers half of the Code’s provisions, among them the law regulating the enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitral awards and official deeds. This article provides an overview of the amendments made on the enforcement of foreign decisions and puts them into the context of the existing law. The article also sheds light on the procedure applying to appeals against decisions on the enforcement. The reform does away with the requirement of an action to declare the foreign decision enforceable. Instead, a simple ex parte application is sufficient, putting the creditor at a strategic advantage. However, with a view to arbitral awards in particular, important issues remain unadressed due to the somewhat inconsistent application of the New York Convention by Emirati courts.

Yesterday, the High Court of London decided two preliminary issues in a large group action, certified as a Group Litigation Order (sub no. 105), brought by about 91,000 owners or lessees of VW, Audi, Skoda and SEAT cars. The claim is brought, against the manufacturers of the affected vehicles (VW, Audi, Skoda, and SEAT), against the relevant VW financial services arm and against a variety of authorised UK based VW dealers. Article 8 no. 1 of the Brussels Ibis Regulation will have been of relevance to the foreign ones amongst the defendants. No express explanations are offered how claimants eligible for the UK group litigation are determined – presumably it depends on where the car was bought.

The precise personal/territorial scope of the respective mass litigations would have been interesting, since the proceedings in the UK are just some of many by disaffected VW owners around the world, and the outcomes for the claimants seem to differ quite substantially. As early as in 2015, a class-action similar to the UK one was commenced against VW in the Federal Court of Australia, on behalf of around 100,000 VW owners, which was settled for up to AusD 87 million. The total amount may go up to AusD 127 million, depending on the ultimate number of claimants. On 1 April 2020, the Federal Court of Australia approved the settlement of the Australian class actions. The settlement was approved on the basis of a Settlement Scheme developed by the solicitors for the applicants and made public here, that sets out the process by which claims can be registered, assessed and paid, and the Deed of Release and Settlement that was agreed between the parties, made publicly available by those solicitors here. In Germany, proceedings under the (quite restrictive) collective redress mechanism of the “Musterfeststellungsklage” were settled recently as well, in this case for up to € 830 Million in total in relation to around 400.000 claimants. These claimants still need to accept individually the offered sums until 20 April 2020 after receiving offers from VW based on the remaining value of their cars these days. Individual litigations outside the Musterfeststellungsklage about the influence of the amount of kilometres that the respective car has already run (amongst other issues) are reaching the German Federal Court of Justice these days (the hearings will take place on 5 May 2020). In addition, the Court of Justice of the European Union is dealing with other aspects of the VW case, see on CoL here.

The claim in the UK proceedings alleges a variety of causes of action against the Defendants, including fraudulent misrepresentation in relation to the sale of the affected vehicles. A number of those causes of action proceed upon the basis that the software function of the Engine amounts to a “defeat device” within the particular meaning of Article 3 (10) of EU Parliament and Council Regulation 715/2007 dated 20 June 2007. If so, then one consequence is that its use in the engine and thus, the sale of the affected vehicles, was unlawful, being prohibited by Article 5 (2) of the Regulation.

Thus, the question arose whether Brexit altered anything in this respect. This question is easy to answer at the moment, see para. 12: “Brexit makes no difference here because EU Law (including the jurisdiction of the CJEU) will continue to have effect as if the UK was still a Member State until the end of the transition period which is 31 December 2020”.

A further issue relates to the Claimants’ reliance on formal letters to VW, issued by the “competent authority” in Germany for these purposes, being its Federal Motor Transport Authority, the German “Kraftfahrtbundesamt” (“the KBA”) dated 15 October, 20 November, and 11 December 2015 (“the KBA Letters”). The Claimants contended that these letters constitute decisions that the software function is a defeat device, that those decisions bind the courts in Germany as a matter of German law, that they also bind other authorities in other Member States, including English courts, either as a matter of EU law or as a matter of German law and by reason of EU and/or English law, there is a conflicts rule to the effect that the question as to whether they bind the UK court must be decided by reference to their binding effect or otherwise under German Law, being the law of the seat of the KBA.

For a number of reasons, including analogies to competition law, the Court decided that the KBA’s finding binds all Member States (including their courts) as a matter of EU law. This is why the Court abstained from taking a decision on the alternative grounds advanced by the Claimants.

At the same time and independently from the binding effects of the KBA’s finding, the Court found on its own account that the affected vehicles did contain defeat devices. Another bad day for VW.

The full text of the judgment is available here.