Today, the European Parliament by adopting JURI Committee Report A9-0177/2022 gave its consent to the accession of the European Union to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.

The Explanatory Statement describes the convention with a view to the “growth in international trade and investment flows” as an “instrument […] of outmost importance for European citizenz ans businesses” and expressed the hope that the EU’s signature will set “an example for other countries to join”. However, the Rapporteur, Ms. Sabrina Pignedoli, also expresses the view that the European Parliament should maintain a strong role when considering objections under the bilateralisation mechanism provided for in Art. 29 of the Convention. Additionally, some concerns were raised regarding the protection of employees and consumers under the instrument.

For those interested in the (remarkably fast) adoption process, the European Parliament’s vote can be rewatched here.

As previously announced, the Journal of Private International Law-Singapore Management University Virtual Conference on Conflicts of Jurisdiction will be held online on 23 to 24 June 2022 (6.00 pm to 10.20 pm Singapore time, 11.00 am to 3.20 pm British Summer Time on each day). The event is supported by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). Complimentary registration for academics, government and international organisation officials, JPrivIntL Advisory Board members and students will close on 22 June 2022. More information on the conference and the link to register can be found here.

This is a guest post by Izaak Weaver-Herrera, JD student at the University of Pittsburgh School of Law

Third-party discovery in the United States pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1782 has often represented a pragmatic, if contentious, tool for international counsel. However, in a decision this week, the U.S. Supreme Court held that § 1782 discovery may be ordered only if the assembled “foreign or international tribunal” is a body which has been conferred governmental or intergovernmental authority. There has already been a wealth of reaction to this decision, including on this site. This post will offer a few additional perspectives.

As a bit of background, ZF Automotive arrived on the Court’s docket as a consolidation of two cases: ZF Automotive US, Inc., et al. v. Luxshare, Ltd. and Alixpartners, LLP, et al., v. the Fund for Protection of Investor’s Rights in Foreign States. Both cases questioned an open aspect of § 1782’s use: whether the phrase “foreign or international tribunal” included private commercial arbitrations between parties of different States and whether it included arbitral panels assembled pursuant to bilateral investment treaties. The Court ruled that since neither panel was conferred governmental authority, § 1782 discovery would be inappropriate in both instances.

Justice Barrett, writing for a unanimous Court, adopted a textual approach to the question. In other words, this was less of a decision on international policy, and more a reflection of what Congress said and meant. The Court paid particular attention to the use of “foreign” and “international” as modifiers to the word “tribunal.” The latter was more critical than the former. The term “[t]ribunal” has peculiar governmental or sovereign connotations, the Court said, “so ‘foreign tribunal’ more naturally refers to a body belonging to a foreign nation than to a tribunal that is simply located in a foreign nation.” Similarly, the Court found that “international tribunal” under the statute more naturally referred to tribunals between nations, rather than arbitral panels composed of or adjudicating issues between nationals of different States.

The Court also reasoned that this understanding of the statute more uniformly aligned with principles underlying both § 1782’s origin and the Federal Arbitration Act. The express purpose of § 1782 was to foster international comity. An overly broad application of § 1782, the Court’s view, would permit the use of district court resources in furtherance of “purely private bodies adjudicating purely private disputes abroad,” positioning the U.S. court system as a persistent presence in potentially limitless international disputes. The Court’s opinion also recognized the tension such a reading would create between the discovery permitted under the FAA. While the FAA restricts discovery to the discretion of arbitration panels, § 1782 permits both the tribunal itself and any “interested person” to submit requests for discovery. Thus, the Court reasoned, a narrower reading of § 1782 also serves to harmonize the scope of arbitration in the United States.

With these observations, the private arbitral tribunal in ZF Automotive was not a “foreign or international tribunal” under § 1782. This was deemed “straightforward.” The Court found the arbitration panel in the Alixpartners dispute more complicated, but ultimately reached the same conclusion. The opinion noted the BIT “simply references the set of rules that govern the panel’s formation and procedure if an investor chooses that forum,” and therefore did not confer permanent sovereign authority on the ad hoc tribunal. Rather, Lithuania simply consented to an arbitration much in the same way two private entities might. Thus, although the Alixpartners tribunal could render a judgment against Lithuania based on its consent in a treaty, it had not been conferred permanent sovereign authority and could not be considered a “foreign or international tribunal.”

The Court did not “foreclose[] the possibility that sovereigns might imbue an ad hoc arbitration panel with official authority.” So although Mixed Claims Commissions of years’ past didn’t quit analogize to modern BIT tribunals, the Court acknowledged that the former may indeed fall on the permissible side of the Court’s new bright line. As international tribunals keep specializing and proliferating (think of the proposed Multilateral Investment Court, or bodies entrusted to handle international criminal law), future questions as to whether a body is “imbued with governmental authority” will for sure arise—but, of course, private commercial arbitration is clearly outside the bounds of section 1782.

Written by Catherine Shen, ABLI

Following a successful collaboration last year, the Asian Business Law Institute (ABLI) and the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) are joining hands again for a second joint webinar this year on Wednesday 27 July between 3 to 6pm (Singapore time).

Titled Cross-border Commercial Dispute Resolution – HCCH 2005 Choice of Court and 2019 Judgments Conventions, the webinar will comprise two sessions, each devoted to one of the conventions. Attendees have the option of attending one or both sessions.

Invited speakers Sara Chisholm-Batten (Partner, Michelmores LLP), the Honourable Justice David Goddard (Court of Appeal, New Zealand), Justice Anselmo Reyes, (International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court), Nish Shetty (Partner, Clifford Chance LLP) and Dr Ning Zhao Senior Legal Officer, HCCH) are expected to talk about the practical operations of the Choice of Court Agreements and Judgments Conventions, how they complement each other and whether the recent debate on the Choice of Court Agreements Convention is justified.

For more information or to register, click here. Early bird discount is available till 26 June. Queries about the webinar can be directed to Catherine at info@abli.asia.

The most recent issue of the German Journal of Comparative Law (Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft) has just been published. The editors mourn the loss of Professor Peter Mankowski (1966–2022), who served as an editor of the ZVglRWiss from 2009 to his untimely death. This issue contains an obituary written by his academic pupil, Professor Oliver L. Knöfel (Viadrina). In addition, this issue offers several presentations made at the conference “Access – Lessons from Africa” that was held at the University of Bayreuth as well as articles on international tort and corporate law. Here are the abstracts:

 

Eghosa O. Ekhator: Multinational Corporations, Accountability and Environmental Justice: The move towards subregional litigation in Africa

In the absence of an explicit international framework on the regulation of the crossborder activities of multinational corporations (MNCs), coupled with the barriers to accessing environmental justice through litigation in domestic courts, many victims of environmental injustice now institute cases in foreign jurisdictions especially the home states of the MNCs because they believe they will get justice in those courts. On the other hand, there is plethora of sub-regional institutions that have been relied upon by victims of environmental injustices arising from activities of MNCs in Africa. This article focuses on the reliance on sub-regional judiciaries in Africa by different stakeholders including oil producing communities, individuals, and other relevant stakeholders amongst others. The Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECCJ) is used as the case-study in this article. Nongovernmental organisations (NGOs) in Nigeria have also relied on the Economic Community of West African States (ECOWAS) Court of Justice (ECCJ) to seek redress for victims of environmental injustice in Nigeria.

 

Claudia Maria Hofmann: Linkages between access to information and access to health care

Information plays a crucial role when it comes to health care. This article elaborates its enabling function with regard to strengthening the position of patients. To this end, reference is made to the human right to health, which is widely acknowledged in both international and regional human rights instruments. In this article, the interpretation provided by the United Nations Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights in its general comment no. 14 on the right to the highest attainable standard of health serves as a basis for identifying the key elements state and non-state actors should take into account when providing health-related information to the public.

 

Victoria Miyandazi: Inequality and Access to Justice: A Focus on the Adjudication of Socio-Economic Rights in Kenya

Kenya’s 2010 Constitution establishes the necessary legal framework for tackling inequalities in the country. The multiple provisions on equality, non-discrimination and socio-economic rights create the impetus for rights-based litigation. Now society wants to claim these rights but there are still many hurdles to do so. Many special interest groups do not have access to lawyers nor the skills to access courts on their own. The growing concern is, therefore, that despite the progressive nature of constitutional provisions that seek to tackle inequalities in the country, they are not by themselves the panacea to the problem of access to justice in the country. Aside from the prohibitive cost of legal representation being a major concern, there are other access to justice challenges that inhibit the poor and marginalised in Kenya from instituting claims in court, and which also affect their chances of succeeding in their claims. This article discusses how an equality-sensitive approach to adjudicating socio-economic rights can help avoid reinforcing inequality and promote equality. It argues that failure to apply such an approach can exacerbate the inequality and access to justice challenges that vulnerable groups already face, especially in times of a crisis like the COVID-19 pandemic.

 

Justin Monsenepwo: Decolonial Comparative Law and Legal Transplants in Africa

On the occasion of a communication made in the aftermath of independence, many African scholars wondered whether African law would continue to be influenced by French law. More than five decades after, the mark of the considerable influence European law has in African former colonies is still perceptible. Yet, in a decolonized context, it should not be implied that European nations rank higher than African nations and that the laws of the former colonizers provide better solutions to African problems. To decolonize legal thinking in Africa, this contribution suggests improving the training of African lawyers and rediscovering customary law to take it into account in the development of legal rules in Africa. This would offer several practical benefits; however, the chief benefit is that it would remarkably boost the ability of lawyers and lawmakers in Africa to innovate.

 

Aron Johanson, Andreas Rapp and Anna Vatter: Mosaiktheorie ad absurdum – Örtliche Zuständigkeit im Rahmen des Art. 7 Nr. 2 EuGVVO bei Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen

The article deals with the case law developed by the ECJ on the question of jurisdiction according to article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation in cases of infringement of personality rights. In particular, the so-called “mosaic approach“ is examined, which the ECJ has consistently applied to solve the problem of such multiple locality cases. The article pays particular attention to the hitherto little-discussed problem of local jurisdiction. It is first shown that the predominant German legal practice in this regard is regularly incompatible with article 7(2) of the Brussels Ia Regulation. At the same time, the consistent application of the mosaic approach in the area of local jurisdiction also leads to completely absurd and thus equally unacceptable results. Therefore, the article is rounded off with brief considerations on how local jurisdiction can be determined sensibly and in conformity with European law.

 

Luca Della Tommasina: Genossenschaften und nachrangige Mitgliederdarlehen

The essay deals with Italian cooperative companies and the possibility to extend some sort of equitable subordination rule to the loans granted by their members. The article 2467 of the Italian civil code provides that the loans granted to limited liability companies (società a responsabilità limitata – „S.r.l.”) by any member shall be subordinated to the other creditors of the company if at the time the loan is advanced: (i) there is an excessive imbalance between the company’s indebtedness and the net assets; (ii) or the company’s financial situation would require an equity contribution instead of a loan. In the cooperative companies’ field the problem arises from the convergence of two circumstances. On the one hand the argument that article 2467 is compatible with cooperative firms has been rejected in the Italian case law. On the other hand, in 2017 a reform of cooperative law has excluded the subordination (and more precisely the subordination according to the article 2467) for the amounts that a cooperative company receives from its members as “prestito sociale”. The essay is intended to demonstrate that: (i) the (equitable) subordination is consistent with cooperative firms; (ii) the 2017 reform must therefore be interpreted in a restrictive way. The need to find balanced solutions to the problem seems to be confirmed by the recent developments of the German legal framework.

 

The Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft was founded in 1878 and is Germany’s oldest continuously published periodical on comparative and private international law. Its current editor-in-chief is Professor Dörte Poelzig, M.jur. (Oxon), University of Hamburg. Content is available online either through the website of the Deutscher Fachverlag or via beck online.