The fourth issue of RabelsZ 2022 has just been released. It contains the following articles:

Moritz Renner / Torsten Kindt: Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht und Investitionsschutzrecht, pp. 787–840, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0078

Conflict of Corporate Laws and International Investment Law. – The withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the EU has revived the debate on the conflict of corporate laws. Much attention has recently been given to the new generation of EU free trade agreements, such as the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement, but their impact on conflicts in the field of corporate law remains unclear. This article proposes that the conflict-of-law effects of these agreements can be fully understood only in the light of their common background in international investment law. Building upon an analysis of the role of treaties in Germany’s conflict-of-law system and of the multiple intersections between the conflict of corporate laws and international investment law in general, the article demonstrates that the newest EU free trade agreements imply in particular the application of a restricted conflict-of-law theory of incorporation on foreign corporations originating from the respective signatory states. While the agreements’ effects on conflicts in the corporate law arena are not as far reaching as those of the EU’s freedom of establishment, they nevertheless further narrow the remaining scope of application of the traditional seat theory underlying Germany’s autonomous rules on conflicts vis-à-vis corporate law.

Tobias Lutzi / Felix M. Wilke: Brüssel Ia extendenda est? – Zur Zukunft der internationalen Zuständigkeit deutscher Gerichte in Zivil- und Handelssachen nach Ausweitung der EuGVVO, pp. 841–875, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0079

Brussels I bis extendenda est? On the Future of the International Jurisdiction of German Courts in Civil and Commercial Matters after an Extension of the Regulation. – With the expiry of the deadline of art. 79 Brussels I bis, the academic debate on a possible further extension of the Regulation to situations involving non-EU defendants is (again) gaining momentum. The present study aims to contribute to this discussion. It compares the relevant German rules on international jurisdiction over non-EU defendants with those of the Brussels I bis Regulation in order to be able to assess the consequences of a possible extension from a German perspective. The study reveals that even replacing the national rules in their entirety would not amount to a radical change. In particular, the addition of typified places of performance under art. 7 no. 1 lit. b Brussels I bis to the forum contractus and the availability of a common forum for joint defendants under art. 8 no. 1 Brussels I bis would constitute welcome improvements of the current framework. The loss of jurisdiction based on the presence of assets under § 23 ZPO would arguably be a disadvantage if not properly compensated for, e.g. through a forum necessitatis provision. The biggest advantage, though, would most likely be the harmonization of the law of international jurisdiction across the EU – which, from a German perspective, would come at a rather reasonable price.

Ulla Liukkunen: Decent Work and Private International Law, pp. 876–904, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0080 [Open Access]

This article examines the decent work objective set by the ILO and UN Agenda 2030 from the point of view of private international law. It conceptualizes decent work, arguing that inclusivity of protective safeguards and structures in cross-border situations is essential to achieving the objective, and that the need for inclusivity draws attention to the relationship between labour law and private international law. The analysis offered also introduces a migration law-related perspective on decent work and the private international law of employment contracts and labour relations more generally. It is argued that understanding that the idea of inclusivity is embedded in the decent work objective brings up a global dimension which calls for uniform regulatory solutions at the international level. Decent work could be coupled relatively easily with the need for a revival of the private international law of labour relations and for developing a labour rights-based approach in private international law. It also connects private international law’s protective normative frameworks to the body of international labour standards.

Adrian Hemler: Virtuelle Verfahrensteilnahme aus dem Ausland und Souveränität des fremden Aufenthaltsstaats – Zugleich ein Beitrag zum Verhältnis des Völkerrechts zum Kollisionsrecht, pp. 905–934, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0081

Virtual Participation in Court Proceedings from Abroad and Its Effects on the Sovereignty of the Foreign State of Residence – With Consideration of the Relationship Between Public International Law and the Conflict of Laws. – Most German-speaking scholars and some German courts consider participation in virtual court proceedings from a foreign state of residence to be a violation of foreign sovereignty. This essay stakes out a contrary position. In reaching this conclusion, it focuses on the distinction between the exercise of state power abroad and the exercise of state power regarding foreign facts. Especially with regards to extraterritorial legislation, it is argued that the law’s scope of sovereign validity remains territorial even if its scope of application covers facts abroad. The discussion also shows how this distinction is equally applicable to court judgments that concern foreign elements. Furthermore, the article discusses the nature of public international law principles regarding extraterritorial legislation and their relationship to national conflict of laws provisions. Also considered is how the sovereignty principle ought to be understood in cyberspace. Having established this theoretical foundation, it is concluded that regardless of the procedural role of the respective party, participation in virtual court proceedings from a foreign state of residence does not amount to a violation of foreign sovereignty.

Corinna Coupette / Dirk Hartung: Rechtsstrukturvergleichung, pp. 935–975, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0082 [Open Access]

Structural Comparative Law. – Structural comparative law explores the similarities and differences between the structures of legal systems. Theoretically grounded in systems theory and complexity science, it models legal systems as networks of documents, organizations, and individuals. Using methods from network analysis, structural comparative law measures these networks, assesses how they change over time, and draws quantitative comparisons between multiple legal systems. It differs from other approaches in its assumptions, its methods, and its goals, in that it acknowledges the relevance of dependencies between system entities and borrows more heavily from data science than from econometrics. Structural comparative law constitutes a novel addition to the comparatist’s toolbox, and it opens myriad opportunities for further research at the intersection of comparative law and data science.

Arseny Shevelev / Georgy Shevelev: Proprietary Status of the Whole Body of a Living Person, pp. 976–997, DOI: 10.1628/rabelsz-2022-0083

This article is a reaction to the growing economic significance of the living human body as well as its legal status. In this paper, we argue that ownership in the human body most effectively guarantees the autonomy of the human will as to the use and disposal of one’s own body, but classical ownership theory is unable to fully ensure the autonomy of the human will, since it risks reviving the institution of slavery. We will demonstrate that theories establishing rights to the body other than ownership rights are limited in content and are inherently inconsistent. At the end of the article, we will propose an abstract ownership theory that allows for the exercise of maximum freedom to dispose of the human body while one is alive and which will be devoid of the flaws of the preceding theories.

 

On Tuesday, November 1, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 27th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 5:00 p.m. – 6:30 p.m. (CET). Symeon C. Symeonides (Willamette University College of Law) will speak, in English, about the topic

Infringement of personality rights via the internet: Jurisdiction and applicable law

Conflicts of laws arising from infringement of personality rights have always been difficult, if only because they implicate conflicting societal values, such as freedom of speech and access to information, on the one hand, and protection of reputation and privacy, on the other hand. The ubiquity of the internet has dramatically increased the frequency and intensity of these conflicts. The speaker will present a proposed international model law that aspires to facilitate the resolution of these conflicts in a practical, efficient, and balanced way.

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.

The tenth EFFORTS Newsletter has just been released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.

Finally, regular updates are available via the Project website and the Project’s LinkedIn and Facebook pages.

 

Although it has in fact been out for several months now, there are few books more deserving of recognition on this blog than Étienne Farnoux’ impressive work on the substantive considerations that inform the rules on international jurisdiction.

Across the book’s 700+ pages, Farnoux launches a sustained attack on the principe de proximité as the foundation of most rules on international jurisdiction, including, most importantly, the forum delicti. He does so in two steps (as any serious French scholar would do): He first discusses the insufficiencies of the proximity-based status quo before developing an alternative approach to international jurisdiction based on procedural and, more importantly, substantive (i.e. policy) considerations.

In the first part, Farnoux explains how localised connecting factors are regularly manipulated to achieve a certain result, most often to create a forum actoris, a practice particularly prevalent in the case law of the CJEU. His analysis is based on a wide range of judgments – Shevill, Kronhofer, Kolassa, Löber, eDate, Bolagsupplysningen, Wikingerhof, Gtflix Tv, … – but does not fail to acknowledge the occasional nuance, as reflected, i.a., by the recent decisions in Vereniging van Effectenbezitters and Mittelbayerischer Verlag. Farnoux deconstructs the alleged objectives of the the principe de proximité – ease of evidence, foreseeability, and effective administration of justice – and demonstrates their inability to justify the allocation of adjudicative jurisdiction in a growing number of inherently delocalised torts.

In the second part, Farnoux therefore proposes a complete change of perspective for international jurisdiction on torts. Rather than chasing an ever more elusive proximity, two sets of considerations should drive the search for the appropriate connecting factor: la justice procédurale, i.e. the just allocation of procedural advantages between claimant and defendant, and la justice substantielle, i.e. the substantive interests of both parties, and of the potential forum. Based on these considerations, Farnoux develops a set of two propositions: First, he suggests to replace the forum delicti by a forum victimae (or forum actoris contrôlé), which would vest jurisdiction in the domicile of the claimant provided that their claim passes a prima-facie exam of its substantive merit – a proposition that certainly holds a claim to intellectual honesty if compared to the practically similar status quo of the Brussels Ia regime, but comes with its own set of problems, including the challenge of examining the merits of a claim before jurisdiction has been established (admittedly a common exercise in English law, though). Alternatively, he proposes to create a new forum protectionis in tort for structurally weaker parties, a proposition that may have a wider appeal, not least for avoiding to abolish the principle of actor sequitur entirely. In the final part of the book, these proposals are supplemented by some thoughts on how the interests of the prospective fora also influence the rules on international jurisdiction.

All in all, Farnoux masterfully combines a thorough, yet very timely analysis of the existing rules on international jurisdiction for torts through the lens of the principe de proximité with some innovative, well-argued propositions on how the latter could be replaced. The book has deservedly won a series of prizes already and is all but certain to become a staple in the library of any scholar working on international jurisdiction.

By judgment of 28 September 2022 – XII ZR 7/22 (so far, only the press release is available, on which the following considerations are based), the German Federal Court of Justice held that Hungarian street tolls can be claimed before German courts.

The claimant is a Hungarian company that collects Hungarian street tolls, the defendant a domestic car rental company. According to Hungarian regulation, it is the registered keeper of the car that owes the toll. If the toll is not paid by a virtual vignette (e-Matrica), an „increased substitute toll“, five times higher than the vignette, must be paid within 60 days, afterwards additonally a large „processing fee“. The first instance rejected the claim, on appeal the defendant was ordered to pay the claimed amount, the second appeal, on issues of law alone, confirmed the judgment on first appeal (except on the issue of which currency could be claimed, Hungarian Forinth or also Euros optionally).

The main point on the second appeal was whether the public policy exception in Article 21 Rome I Regulation applies. This analysis implies that the claim is characterised as contractual and that the Hungarian law on street tolls applies. The first issue was rather whether imposing liability solely on the part of the registered keeper would conflict with German public policy in case that this keeper is a car rental company whose business obviously is renting out its registered cars to the respective driver. As German law (section 7 German Road Traffic Act) prescribes, rather similarly, at least a subsidiary liability of the registered keeper, the Court rightly rejected a violation of German public policy. Since this result was obvious, the issue must have been dealt with upon party submission with which the Court has to deal with as a matter of fair proceedings (right to be heard, extending to a right to see the Court dealing with the Party’s core points).

More interestingly, the „increased substitute toll“ was seen as a contractual penalty which was – again rightly – considered as „not entirely unknown under German law“, referring to similar substitute tolls indeed used in contracts for tramway or underground railroad traffic etc. if the traveller does not have a valid ticket. One is tempted to add that a contractual practice does not necessarily indicate the legal validity of this practice, but as this practice is virtually uncontested it is certainly convincing to take it as a „proof“ for how German law deals with contractual penalties. The German Civil Code provides for the basis in sections 339 et seq., combined with sections 305 et seq. (control of unfair terms).

On the issue of the currency of the claim, the Court observed that the debt in question in foreign currency can only be claimed in that foreign currency unless the applicable Hungarian law allows optional payment in Euros. In order to assess this point of Hungarian law the case was referred back to the court of first instance.

The case shows that Member State Courts continue being careful before striking down the results of a foreign applicable law as a violation of the national public policy. Had the highest instance of the German civil courts tended towards the opposite it would have had the obligation to refer the question to the ECJ whether activating the public policy exception was still within the confines of this exception as defined in its outer limits by European Union law. Rejecting a public policy violation in the sense of Article 21 Rome I Regulation (and comparable provisions in EU PIL) puts this decision in a (small) series of decisions of Member State courts, compared to almost none that actually assessed a violation. Nevertheless, it is remarkable that the court of appeal gave leave for a second appeal on the grounds that the questions on Article 21 Rome I Regulation would be of fundamental relevance („von grundsätzlicher Bedeutung“). Otherwise, the case could not have reached the Federal Court of Justice, as complaints against not giving leave are only admissible beyond a value of the appeal of EUR 20.000, and the total sum of the claim here was not more than approximately EUR 1.300.