Views
Ulla Liukkunen on Chinese private international law, comparative law and international commercial arbitration – launch of Ius Comparatum
Guest post by Ulla Liukkunen, Professor of Labour Law and Private International Law at the University of Helsinki and Director of the Finnish Center of Chinese Law and Chinese Legal Culture
The International Academy of Comparative Law launched a new open access publication in November 2020. Volume no 1 on the use of comparative law methodology in international arbitration contains articles by Emmanuel Gaillard, Sebastián Partida, Charles-Maurice Mazuy, S.I. Strong, Johannes Landbrecht, Morad El Kadmiri, Marco Torsello, Ulla Liukkunen, Alyssa King, Alexander Ferguson, Dorothée Goertz and Luis Bergolla as well as introductory remarks on the topic by the Secretary-General of the Academy, Diego P. Fernández Arroyo.
The volume no 1 is available on aidc-iacl.org/journal.
The article “Chinese context and complexities — comparative law and private international law facing new normativities in international commercial arbitration” was written by Ulla Liukkunen, Professor of Labour Law and Private International Law at the University of Helsinki and Director of the Finnish Center of Chinese Law and Chinese Legal Culture.
Professor Liukkunen examines international commercial arbitration from the perspective of Chinese developments, noting that, in global terms, the organization of cross-border dispute resolution is changing as a part of the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) development. With the BRI, Chinese interest in international commercial arbitration has gained a new dimension as BRI promotes the expansion of Chinese dispute resolution institutions and their international competitiveness.
According to Liukkunen, these developments challenge the current narrative of international arbitration. She explores private international law as a framework for unfolding noteworthy characteristics of the Chinese legal system and legal culture that are present in international commercial arbitration and can be linked to an assessment of the role of the BRI in shaping the arbitration regime. A rethink of comparative methodology is proposed in order to promote an understanding of Chinese law in the arbitration process.
Moreover, Liukkunen argues that considerations of the Chinese private international law and arbitration regime speak for a broader comparative research perspective towards international commercial arbitration. In the international commercial arbitration frame under scrutiny, we can see the conception of party autonomy placed in a Chinese context where the state is shaping the still relatively young private international law frame for exercise of that freedom and certain institutional structures are advocated where party autonomy is placed. Chinese development underlines the connection between the legal regime of arbitration and endeavours by the state, thereby requiring assessment of party autonomy from the perspective of the regulatory framework of private international law that expresses the complex dichotomy between private and public interests.
Report on the ERA conference of 29-30 October 2020 on ‘Recent Developments in the European Law of Civil Procedure’
This report has been prepared by Carlos Santaló Goris, a researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg.
On 29-30 October 2020, ERA – the Academy of European Law – organized a conference on “Recent Developments in the European Law of Civil Procedure”, offering a comprehensive overview of civil procedural matters at the European and global level. The program proved very successful in conveying the status quo of, but also a prospective outlook on, the topics that currently characterise the debates on cross-border civil procedure, including the Brussels I-bis Regulation and 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention, the digitalisation of access to justice, the recent developments on cross-border service of documents and taking of evidence, and judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters in the aftermath of Brexit.
For those who did not have the opportunity to attend this fruitful conference, this report offers a succinct overview of the topics and ideas exchanged over this two-day event.
Day 1: The Brussels I (Recast) and Beyond
The Brussels regime, its core notions and the recent contributions by the CJEU via its jurisprudence were the focus of the first panel. In this framework, Cristina M. Mariottini (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg) tackled the core notion of civil and commercial matters (Art. 1(1)) under the Brussels I-bis Regulation. Relying, in particular, on recent CJEU judgments, among which C-551/15, Pula Parking; C-308/17, Kuhn; C-186/19, Supreme Site Services, she reconstructed the functional test elaborated by the CJEU in this area of the law, shedding the light on the impact of recent developments in the jurisprudence of the Court, i.a., with respect to immunity claims raised by international organizations.
Marta Pertegás Sender (Maastricht University and University of Antwerp) proceeded then with a comprehensive overview of the choice-of-court agreement regimes under the Brussels I-bis Regulation and the 2005 Hague Convention on choice of court agreements. Relying, inter alia, on the CJEU case law on Article 25 of the Brussels I-bis Regulation (C-352/13, CDC Hydrogen; C-595/17, Apple Sales; C-803/18, Balta; C-500/18, AU v. Reliantco; C-59/19, Wikingerhof (pending)), she highlighted the theoretical and practical benefits of party autonomy in the field of civil and commercial matters.
The interface between the Brussels I-bis Regulation and arbitration, and the boundaries of the arbitration exclusion in the Regulation, were the focus of Patrick Thieffry (International Arbitrator; Member of the Paris and New York Bars) in his presentation. In doing so he analysed several seminal cases in that subject area (C-190/89, Marc Rich; C-391/95, Van Uden; C-185/07, West Tankers; C?536/13, Gazprom), exploring whether possible changes were brought about by the Brussels I-bis Regulation.
The evolution of the CJEU’s jurisprudence vis-à-vis the notions of contractual and non-contractual obligations were at the heart of the presentation delivered by Alexander Layton (Barrister, Twenty Essex; Visiting Professor at King’s College, London). As Mr Layton effectively illustrated, the CJEU’s jurisprudence in this field is characterized by two periods marking different interpretative patterns: while, until 2017, the CJEU tended to interpret the concept of contractual matters restrictively, holding that “all actions which seek to establish the liability of a defendant and which are not related to a contract” fall within the concept of tort (C-189/87, Kalfelis), the Court interpretation subsequently steered towards an increased flexibility in the concept of “matters relating to a contract” (C-249/16, Kareda; C-200/19, INA).
The principle of mutual trust of the European Area of Freedom, Security and Justice vis-à-vis the recent Polish judicial reform (and its consequential backlash on the rule of law) was the object of the presentation delivered by Agnieszka Fr?ckowiak-Adamska (University of Wroc?aw). Shedding the light on the complex status quo, which is characterized by several infringement actions initiated by the European Commission (C?192/18, Commission v Poland; C?619/18, Commission v Poland; C?791/19 R, Commission v Poland (provisional measures)) as well as CJEU case law (e.g. C?216/18 PPU, Minister for Justice and Equality v LM), Ms Fr?ckowiak-Adamska also expounded on the decentralised remedies that may be pursued by national courts in accordance with the EU civil procedural instruments, among which public policy, where available, and refusal by national courts to qualify Polish judgments as “judgments” pursuant to those instruments.
The second half of the first day was dedicated to the 2019 HCCH Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters. In this context, it is of note that the EU, among others, has opened a Public Consultation into a possible accession to the Convention (see, esp., Thomas John’s posting announcing the EU’s public consultation). While Ning Zhao (Senior Legal Officer, HCCH) gave an overview of the travaux preparatoires of the 2019 HCCH Convention and of the main features of this instrument, Matthias Weller (University of Bonn) delved into the system for the global circulation of judgments implemented with the Convention, highlighting its traditional but also innovative features and its potential contributions, in particular to cross-border dealings.
The roundtable that followed offered the opportunity to further expound on the 2019 HCCH Judgments Convention. Namely, Norel Rosner (Legal and Policy Officer, Civil Justice, DG for Justice and Consumers, European Commission) explained that the EU has a positive position towards the Convention, notably because it facilitates the recognition and enforcement of EU judgments in third countries and because it will help create a more coherent system of recognition and enforcement in the EU Member States of judgments rendered in other (of course, non-EU) Contracting States. The roundtable also examined the features and objectives of Article 29, which puts forth an “opt-out” mechanism that allows Contracting States to mutually exclude treaty obligations with those Contracting States with which they are reluctant to entertain the relations that would otherwise arise from the Convention. As Ms Mariottini observed, this provision – which combines established and unique characters compared to the systems put forth under the previous HCCH Conventions – contributes to defining the “territorial geometry” of the Convention: it enshrines a mechanism that counterbalances the unrestricted openness that would otherwise stem from the universality of the Convention, and is a valuable means to increase the likelihood of adherence to the Convention. Matthias Weller proceeded then to explore the consequences of limiting a Contracting State’s objection window to 12 months from adherence to the Convention by the other Contracting State and raised the case of a Contracting State whose circumstances change so dramatically, beyond the 12-month window, that it is no longer possible to assure judicial independence of its judiciary. In his view, solutions as the ones proposed by Ms Fr?ckowiak-Adamska for the EU civil procedural instruments may also apply in such circumstances.
Day 2: European Civil Procedure 4.0.
Georg Haibach (Legal and Policy Officer, Civil Justice, DG for Justice and Consumers, European Commission), opened the second day of the conference with a detailed presentation on the ongoing recast of the Service Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007). Emphasizing that the main objective of this reform focuses on digitalization – including the fact that the proposed recast prioritises the electronic transmission of documents – Mr Haibach also shed the light on other notable innovations, such as the possibility of investigating the defendant’s address.
The Evidence Regulation (Council Regulation No. 1206/2001), which is also in the process of being reformed, was at the core of the presentation delivered by Pavel Simon (Judge at the Supreme Court of the Czech Republic, Brno) who focuses not only on the status quo of the Regulation as interpreted by the CJEU (C-283/09, Wery?ski; C-332/11, ProRail; C-170/11, Lippens), but also tackled the current proposals for a reform: while such proposals do not appear to bring major substantive changes to the Regulation, they do suggest technological improvements, for instance favouring the use of videoconference.
In her presentation, Xandra Kramer (University of Rotterdam and Utrecht University) analysed thoroughly two of the CJEU judgments on “satellite” instruments of the Brussels I-bis Regulation: the EAPO Regulation (Regulation No. 655/2014); and the EPO Regulation (Regulation No. 1896/2006). C-555/18, was the very first judgment that the CJEU rendered on the EAPO Regulation. Xandra Kramer remarked the underuse of this instrument. In the second part of her lecture, she identified two trends in the judgments on the EPO Regulation (C?21/17, Caitlin Europe; Joined Cases C?119/13 and C?120/13, ecosmetics; Joined Cases C?453/18 and C?494/18, Bondora), observing that the CJEU tries, on the one hand, to preserve the efficiency of the EPO Regulation, while at the same time seeking to assure an adequate protection of the debtor’s position.
In the last presentation of the second day, Helena Raulus (Head of Brussels Office, UK Law Societies) explored the future judicial cooperation in civil matters between the EU and the United Kingdom in the post-Brexit scenario. Ms Raulus foresaw two potential long-term solutions for the relationship: namely, relying either on the 2019 Hague Convention, or on the Lugano Convention. In her view, the 2019 Hague Convention would not fully answer the future challenges of potential cross-border claims between EU Member States and the UK: it only covers recognition and enforcement, while several critical subject areas are excluded (e.g. IP-rights claims); and above all, from a more practical perspective, it is still an untested instrument. Ms Raulus affirmed that the UK’s possible adherence to the Lugano Convention is the most welcomed solution among English practitioners. Whereas this solution has already received the green light from the non-EU Contracting States to the Lugano Convention (Iceland, Norway, and Switzerland), she remarked that to date the EU has not adopted a position in this regard.
The conference closed with a second roundtable, which resumed the discussions on the future relations between the EU and the UK on judicial cooperation in civil law matters. Christophe Bernasconi (Secretary General, HCCH) offered an exhaustive review on the impact of the UK withdrawal from the EU on all the existing HCCH Conventions. From his side, Alexander Layton wondered if it might be possible to apply the pre-existing bilateral treaties between some EU Member States and the UK: in his view, those treaties still have a vestigial existence in those matters non-covered by the Brussels I-bis Regulation, and thus they were not fully succeeded. In Helena Raulus’s view, such treaties would raise competence issues, since the negotiating of such treaties falls exclusively with the EU (as the CJEU found in its Opinion 1/03). As Ms Raulus observed, eventually attempts to re-establish bilateral treaties between the Member States and the UK might trigger infringement proceedings by the Commission against those Member States. The discussion concluded by addressing the 2005 Hague Convention and it is applicability to the UK after the end of the transition period.
Overall, this two-day event was characterized by a thematic and systematic approach to the major issues that characterize the current debate in the area of judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters, both at the EU and global level. By providing the opportunity to hear, from renowned experts, on both the theoretical and practical questions that arise in this context, it offered its audience direct access to highly qualified insight and knowledge.
Frontiers in Civil Justice – An Online Debriefing
Conference ‘Frontiers in Civil Justice’ held on 16 and 17 November 2020 (online)
By Jos Hoevenaars & Betül Kas, Erasmus University Rotterdam (postdocs ERC consolidator project Building EU Civil Justice)
As announced earlier on this blog, the Conference Frontiers in Civil Justice organized by the ERC team together with Ilja Tillema of Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam, took place on 16 and 17 November 2020.
The conference addressed four key issues in civil justice, which require a deeper and renewed reflection in light of their contribution to facilitating access to justice. Those concern the shaping of the interaction between formal and informal justice (panel I), the digitalization of consumer dispute resolution (panel II), the collectivizing and monetizing of civil litigation (panel III) and justice innovation and frontier developments in civil justice (panel IV). Renowned speakers and selected speakers following a call for papers gave their views during the two-day conference that, although set up previously as a blended event with online as well as live attendance at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, was forced to move fully online due to the tightening of Covid-19 measures in the Netherlands.
The Needs and Challenges of Digitizing Justice in Europe (Keynote 1)
The first day of the conference was kicked-off by the keynote speech of Hrvoje Grubisic (DG Justice and Consumers, European Commission). Grubisic underlined the necessity of digitalisation in the justice field in order to guarantee Europe’s citizens access to justice. The EU’s efforts of furthering the employment of digital technologies in the justice area is particularly warranted by the persistent increase in cross-border activities in civil and commercial matters. Grubisic pointed to the importance of the principles contained in the Tallinn ministerial declaration in framing and guiding the Commission’s strategy of the digitalisation of justice in the EU. The current COVID-19 crisis has accelerated the Commission’s activities. On the basis of its roadmap setting out the need to steer and coordinate the digitalisation of justice at EU level, the Commission plans to publish a communication of its policy priorities by the end of 2020. In practical terms, the Commission intends to employ a toolbox approach, starting with the identification of cross-border judicial procedures that can be digitised, ascertaining the appropriate IT tools (e.g. e-CODEX based systems) and ensuring funding sources for the Member States.
Shaping the Interaction between Formal and Informal Justice (Panel I)
Subsequently, Elisabetta Silvestri (University of Pavia) introduced the first panel dealing with the interaction between formal and informal justice. Silvestri stressed the importance of understanding how formal and informal justice can coexist in a balanced relationship that is able to grant individuals access to justice. According to her, the need for a fruitful cooperation between courts and ADR providers in the best interest of stakeholders became even more pronounced in the current pandemic. The presentation of Diana Wallis (Hull University; former ELI president) reflected on the differing nature of formal and informal justice. Wallis traces how the EU has promoted the shift of the delivery of justice away from the nation states’ courts to ADR bodies. While the ELI Statement addressed the practicalities of the relationship between private and public justice, the deeper question about how to address the dangers and drawbacks of privatized justice remains unresolved. Anna Nylund (The Arctic University of Norway) submitted in her presentation that many ADR processes fail to deliver on their promises of improved access to justice. Nylund sees ADR to be based predominantly on individualistic values, expecting citizens to exercise self-determination, and as such therefore geared towards the highly educated middle class. The gap between theory and practice contributes to the reluctance towards ADR processes in Europe. She therefore proposed a step-by-step approach of re-designing ADR according to context-dependent goals. The following two presentations provided insights into the relationship between formal and informal justice by drawing on the concrete experiences of two national legal systems: Masood Ahmed (University of Leicester) presented the experience of the English civil justice system with compulsory ADR. While compulsory ADR has been traditionally dismissed by the English judiciary, a divergent judicial approach has emerged which impliedly obliges the parties to engage with ADR. Ahmed criticises the persistence of the traditional approach and calls upon the courts to fully embrace their case management powers in making ADR orders. Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven) reports how informal justice has been introduced by a number of procedural reforms in Belgium. Voet’s presentation addresses five critical issues regarding informal justice processes, namely (1) their possible mandatory nature; (2) their quality; (3) the procedural guarantees offered by them; (4) the enforcement of their outcomes; and (5) the interaction with the formal justice process.
Digitalization of Consumer Dispute Resolution (Panel II)
The second day of the conference started with a panel, chaired by Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg), focusing on online dispute resolution (ODR) for consumer claims, using case-studies as a starting point to discuss how different types of cODR procedures can contribute to consumers’ access to justice. Martin Ebers (University of Tartu) presented on the promise and challenge of AI based techniques in cODR and its impact on due process. Giving an overview of current uses of AI in different phases of disputes, from case management and automated anonymisation to data inference and automated decision-making, Ebers laid out the framework for future regulation of the use of AI in European ODR. Subsequently, Marco Giacalone (Vrije Universiteit Brussels) used examples from the US, Canada, Australia and Slovakia to zoom in on the concept and application of e-negotiation. Reflecting on the potential of this mode of assisted and automated negotiation in resolving disputes, Giacalone considers EU practices of e-negotiation for consumer dispute resolution as significant yet insufficient, with considerable room for improvement in enhancing consumer access to justice in the EU. Eline Verhage (Leiden University) presented on the recent experience of the Dutch Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (Geschillencommissies) in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. Presenting very recent data on the move to online hearings she reflected on the impact on the ‘voluntariness gap’ in these out-of-court alternative dispute schemes, concluding that virtual hearings seem a promising cODR tool for enhancing business participation, due to the increased option and lower costs. Finally, Emma van Gelder (Erasmus University Rotterdam) discussed observations from empirical research on Klachtencompas (a free online complaint platform of the Dutch consumer protection organization Consumentenbond) and the in-house dispute resolution platform used by Paypal, to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of these ‘first-line’ complaint resolution mechanisms. The main point of discussion following the various examples presented during the panel was on the applicability of Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter, and on the question of how to apply the notions of fair trial and due process to both certified and uncertified ADR schemes in the EU.
Current Issues in Access to Justice: An English Perspective (Keynote 2)
In the second keynote of the conference, professor Dame Hazel Genn (University College London) provided a very timely insight into current developments in the English civil justice system in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Bringing together the most recent insights from (some unpublished) rapid reviews of the rush to mostly online justice administration and reflecting on the impact of online courts and tribunals on access to justice especially for those that are in most dire need of legal assistance and resolution. Quite in contrast to previous discussions about the great potential of technological innovations in the areas of small claims and consumer dispute resolution, Professor Genn stressed the need to also look at what we potentially lose in procedural and substantive terms when hearings are undertaken remotely or on paper. Contrasting the great benefits of technology in terms of convenience, economy and efficiency with its downsides apparent in both the experiences of litigants as well as the judiciary, Genn ended on the pertinent question: Are we processing cases or are we doing justice?
Collectivizing & Monetizing Civil Litigation (Panel III)
The third panel chaired by John Sorabji (Barrister, 9 St John Street; University College London) turned attention to collective redress via adjudication and, specifically, the funding of civil litigation. Ianika Tzankova (Tilburg University) drew lessons for the funding of collective redress in global disputes from the Dutch experience. In particular, Tzankova explored and compared the financing of collective civil litigation on the basis of the Dexia case which was the first major consumer mass claim in the Netherlands and the investor litigation in the Fortis collective action, which resulted in the first global collective settlement that can be considered ‘EU-originated’. Astrid Stadler (University of Konstanz) explained in her presentation the German situation regarding litigation funding of collective actions. In particular, Stadler presented on how the judiciary dealt with third-party funding arrangements and funding by legal tech companies and SPVs in recent case law. The judiciary’s strong aversion against entrepreneurial litigation endangers the effective enforcement of the law. Stadler concluded that third-party funding must be available for representative claimants and should be regulated by the legislator. Complementing Tzankova’s presentation, Ilja Tillema (Erasmus University Rotterdam) reflected on the rise of entrepreneurial mass litigation in the Netherlands. Particularly in the last decade, spurred by the potential of large earnings, entrepreneurial parties have started to diversify the Dutch mass litigation landscape. Tillema reflected on the pros and cons of their involvement, presented empirical material of the amount and types of cases in which entrepreneurial parties are involved, and evaluated the way that the legislator and courts have dealt with this development. Catherine Piché (Université de Montréal) elucidated Quebec’s experience with public forms of financing class litigation. According to Piché, the Canadian province of Quebec’s Fonds d’aide aux recours collectifs (the assistance fund for class action lawsuits) serves not only as an effective class litigation funding mechanism, but also as a mandatory independent oversight body. Piché evaluates that financing class actions publicly through assistance by such entities is the most appropriate and effective way to finance class action litigation and could therefore serve as a model for other legal systems.
Innovations in Civil Justice (Panel IV)
Chaired by professor Alan Uzelac (University of Zagreb) the final panel brought together speakers following a call for papers. The call invited submissions on topics relating to justice innovation, specifically about the development of initiatives aimed at bringing justice closer to citizens, their relevance for access to justice and the judicial system, and the challenges they may pose for judicial administration, litigants and other stakeholders. The presentation of Iris van Domselaar (UvA) kicked off with legal philosophical reflections on civil justice innovations that aim to ‘bring justice closer to the citizen’, and posed the question to what extent the ‘pragmatic turn’ in civil justice systems is reconcilable with courts being objective justice-affording institutions, as such setting the scene for the specific examples of innovation and developments that were to follow. Pietro Ortolani (Radboud University Nijmegen) & Catalina Goanta (Maastricht University) and next Naomi Appelman & Anna van Duin (UvA) presented to the audience two specific examples that raised divergent questions about the frontier civil justice development playing out in the realm of online social media. The former, by comparatively analyzing reporting systems and underlying procedural rights of users related to content moderation by four social media platforms (Facebook, Twitch, TikTok and Twitter), presented an example where innovation may actually pose a threat to access to justice. While the latter, reporting on the findings of empirical research on the need for procedural innovation in the Netherlands to quickly take down online content that causes personal harm, presented how innovations in civil justice could contribute to the effective protection of rights in the digital realm. The final topic of this panel was presented by Nicolas Kyriakides & Anna Plevri (University of Nicosia) who, taking Zuckerman’s predictions on AI’s role in guaranteeing access to justice as a starting point, presented their own evaluation on this matter, encouraging further debate on AI’s role in adjudication. By elucidating the potential of AI to render the familiar open-court, multi-party process of justice completely unrecognisable, they warned about the potential loss of perceived legitimacy of the justice system as a whole, should AI systematically penetrate the entire justice system.
Although the conference was forced to move fully online, the digital setting did not stifle the interaction with the audience. Through the use of the chat function and live chat moderators the speakers were able to answer questions from the audience in the chat and the chairs were able to open up the floor to members of the audience. This led to lively discussions very much resembling a live setting.
T
his conference was organised by Erasmus School of Law of Rotterdam University and funded by an ERC consolidator grant from the European Research Council for the project ‘Building EU Civil Justice’.
News
2nd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law 6 May 2024
The Centre for Private International Law (CPIL) of the University of Aberdeen is pleased to announce that it is now accepting is now accepting submissions for the 2nd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law which will take place online on 6 May 2024.
First View Articles for International and Comparative Law Quarterly Issue 1 of 2024
The first view articles for ICLQ issue 1 of 2024 was recently published. As regards, private international law, it contains one research article and a book review as follows:
“Who’s Afraid of Punitive Damages?” – Conference in Augsburg on 8 and 9 March 2024
On 8 and 9 March, a conference will be held at the University of Augsburg, Germany, to discuss the current developments in the award and/or recognition of punitive damages. The conference, which is part of a larger research project, takes the leading German decision on the question as a starting point to discuss if and to what extent its highly restrictive approach is still tenable.