Views
Three Tickets, One Seat – A Methodological Anatomy Of The Indian Practice Of Determination Of Seat Of Arbitration
Written by Sankalp Udgata & Hetal Doshi, National Law University (NUSRL), Ranchi
The choice of arbitration as the default system of resolution of commercial disputes, which was initially restricted to the foreign parties is now being reciprocated by even the Indian parties, thus setting the stage for India being a global hub for commercial arbitration. Surprising as it is, commercial agreements worth billions have but a succinct recording of a seat of arbitration. Sloppy as they are, these poorly drafted dispute resolution clauses open the doors to a tsunami of litigation which simply intervene and delay the entire resolution process thereby defeating the very virtue arbitrations proclaim to instil.
Since arbitrations are out-of-court proceedings, they do not by themselves command the authority of the sovereign. Therefore, every arbitration must be guided and overseen by a Court that has supervisory jurisdiction over it. This Court is the Juridical Seat of the arbitration as determined by the parties and the most important concept that the territorial situs of the Seat denotes. In absence of a positive determination by the parties in the arbitration agreement, the Tribunal or a Court whose supervisory jurisdiction is sought must first determine the Seat and consequently whether it has the jurisdiction, as the Juridical Seat, to hear the matter.
However, arbitration in India has been a Hornet’s nest if not a Pandora’s box to say the least. Admittedly, the vast majority of problems associated with international commercial arbitrations taking place in India revolve around the uncertainty in the Courts’ approach to determination of the seat when the parties have failed to choose one. The Indian Courts, much rather the Supreme Court of India (“SCI”) has shown a consistent disparity in applying any particular method for determination of the Seat in such situations. This article aims to reconcile the various tests that the Supreme Court of India has applied over the years and attempts to plot their reasoning into three distinct methods for determination of a seat when the arbitration agreement fails to explicitly document one. This article also discusses the various factors relevant in each method with examples and can therefore serve as a catalogue for practitioners as well as valuable literature to the academia.
I. Seat <=> Venue Method
Representing the most widely accepted view, this method is applicable when parties have at least chosen a particular geographic location as the venue for the arbitration to take place without specifically designating a Seat. Finally, setting the clock straight and reconciling to the globally accepted rules, the SCI in Soma JV case held that the venue of arbitration shall be the default Seat in absence of any contrary indica. (¶63)
For it to be the default Seat, the venue must exist in absence of any of the following factors that, over the years, the Court has found to be contrary indications to venue being the Seat.
- Designation of an alternate place as Seat
When there is an express designation of the arbitration venue, combined with a supranational body of rules governing the arbitration the venue shall be the seat unless the parties have designated any alternative place as the seat. (Shashoua, ¶34,42)
- Existence of a national set of lex arbitri or proper law
Despite having designated London as the venue of arbitration, the SCI held Bombay to be the Seat in the 2014 Enercon Case. In making this determination, the Court was heavily swayed by the fact that the laws specifically chosen by the parties in the contract to apply to different aspects of the dispute were Indian laws.
- Existence of an alternate place of making of award
Since it is necessary for the arbitral award to be made and signed at the place of arbitration as determined by Section 20 of the 1996 Arbitration Act (“Act”), an award made at one of the two designated venues resulted in the venue where the award was not signed was not the Seat in the Soma JV case.
- Venue of an arbitration proceeding
The Court has on several occasions differentiated between the venue of arbitration proceedings from the venue of an arbitration proceeding for the later cannot be construed as anything but a convenient location for the conduction of a meeting. (2012 Enercon case)
II. Inverse Closest & Most Real Connection Method (“Inverse-CMRC”)
The globally acclaimed CMRC test is used to determine either lex arbitri or the proper law governing the arbitration agreement when the place of arbitration has been decided as the same would be the law most closely connected to the choice of place. While the English Courts in Peruvian Insurance Case applied the law of the place of arbitration as the lex arbitri, in the Sulamerica Case, applied it to the proper law governing the arbitration agreement as they had the most real connection to the place chosen by the parties. India has also used the test in a peculiar way to apply the lex arbitri to the whole of the agreement. This proximity is essentially based on the legal localisation of the place.
However, India has been applying the above test somewhat inversely based on the geographic localisation of the law instead. Bemusing everyone, the SCI in Enercon Case applied the Inverse CMRC Method to determine the Seat to be India as it was most closely and intimately connected to the lex arbitri and the proper law of the contract, both of which were Indian. The Indian model seems to presume that the parties could not have contemplated a delocalised lex arbitri or proper law. Be that as it may, where a supranational set lex arbitri or proper law exists, the first method will prevail as these laws will not be sufficient contrary indications.
III. Cause of Action Method
This is an unsuitable method of determination of seat. In this case, if the arbitration agreement does not reveal a Seat then the Courts of the place where the cause of action arose will be considered as the Juridical Seat of the arbitration. This is derived from the definition of ‘Court’ under Section 2(1)(e) of the Act which also includes the Court that would have jurisdiction over the question if it formed the subject matter of a suit.
Understanding this to mean that the legislature has intended to give jurisdiction to both the Court of arbitration and the Court having territorial jurisdiction over the place where the cause of action arose, concurrently, the SCI has caused tremendous controversy by in Paragraph 96 of BALCO judgment. However, when read wholly and not in isolation, BALCO judgment very distinctly states that if concurrent jurisdiction were to be the order of the day, despite the seat having been located and specifically chosen by the parties, party autonomy would suffer and therefore Courts were intended to exercise supervisory jurisdiction to the exclusion of other Courts as provided under Section 42. (Soma JV case, ¶51)
Therefore, since the application referred to under Section 42 can only be legitimately made to the Court of the Seat, this method is only useful where seat could not be determined by any of the above methods maybe owing to lack of any territorial nexus.
Conclusion
The contradictory judgments of the English and Indian Courts over the determination of Seat in the Enercon case caused a delay of two years and has painted a Medusa of how the incongruous views of Courts across jurisdictions terrorise the development of international commercial arbitration. Therefore, arbitrations anchored in India or involving Indian parties must be planned in a manner eliding with the recent set of “pro-arbitration” trends in determination of Seat.
Although there is no specific order of precedence for application of these methods, their very nature and the manner of their application till date suggest that the Seat-Venue method takes precedence over the other two owing to its strong territorial nexus. Ideally thus, upon failure of this method owing to the presence of a sufficient contrary indica, should the Inverse-CMRC method be applied followed by the Cause of Action method as the last resort in this three-fold method for determination of Seat.
‘Force majeure certificates’ issued by the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry
The Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry is issuing ‘force majeure certificates’, like some of their homologues in other countries, as discussed earlier in this blog. Although this practice has existed in Russia since 1993, the number of requests for the certificates has recently increased. The requests come not only from Russian companies but also from foreign entities. While the increase is understandable in these times of the coronavirus pandemic, under Russian law, the ‘force majeure certificate’ can (only) form a part of evidence in possible future disputes, as its impact on the outcome of the dispute is ultimately defined by the (Russian or foreign) courts or arbitration tribunals.
The Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (CCI) is issuing ‘force majeure certificates’, like some of their homologues in other countries. Although this practice exists in Russia since 1993, the CCI has recently noticed an increase in the number of requests for the certificates, due to the coronavirus pandemic. The requests come not only from Russian companies but also from foreign entities. What could be the practical value of the certificate in a contractual dispute relating to the consequences of the pandemic?
The legal basis for the CCI’s competence to issue the ‘force majeure certificates’ is laid down in the law ‘On the chambers of commerce and industry in the Russian Federation’ of 7 July 1993. Article 1 of the law defines the CCI as a non-state non-governmental organisation created to foster business and international trade. Along with other competences, the CCI may act as an ‘independent expert’ (art. 12) and may provide information services (art. 2) in matters relating to international trade. One of the services is the issuing of ‘force majeure certificates’. The Rules for issuing the certificates are defined by the CCI’s governing council. These Rules entrust the CCI’s legal department with assessing requests and advising whether the certificate should be issued. The advice is given on the basis of the documents that a party submits to substantiate their request, following the Rules.
Notably, the list of documents includes (a copy of) the contract, ‘which contains a clause on force majeure’ (point 3.3.2 of the Rules). This requirement is not accidental; it has to do with the non-mandatory character of the legal provision on force majeure. Article 401(3) of the Russian Civil Code provides for exoneration of liability for non-performance of a contractual obligation, if the party proves that the non-performance was due to the force majeure. This provision applies by default, if ‘the law or the contract does not provide otherwise’ (art. 401(3)). The parties may provide otherwise by including a clause about unforeseen circumstances, hardship, frustration, force majeure, or similar circumstances in the contract. This is, at least, the way Russian courts have applied art. 401(3) up to the present time. The Russian CCI does not appear to deviate from this approach. More than 95% of the requests submitted to the Russian CCI for ‘force majeure certificates’ have so far been rejected, according to the head of the Russian CCI (even though some decrees deliberately label the COVID-19 pandemic ‘force majeure’ as, for example, the Decree of 14 March 2020 does, this decree is adopted by the municipality of Moscow to prevent the spread of the virus by various measures of social distancing).
Thus, the legal basis of the CCI’s competence to issue a ‘force majeure certificate’ implies that the certificate is the result of a service provided by a non-state non-governmental organisation. The application of Article 401(3) implies the need to interpret the contract, more specifically, the provision on force majeure it possibly includes. If the parties disagree on the interpretation, a dispute may arise. The competence to resolve the dispute lies with the courts or arbitration tribunals. In this way, the ICC’s decision (taken upon the advice of the CCI’s legal department) to confirm by issuing a certificate that a particular event represents a force majeure in the context of the execution of a specific contract can have persuasive authority in the context of the application of Art. 401 (3). However, it remains the competence of the courts or arbitration tribunals to apply art. 401(3) to the possible dispute and to establish the ultimate impact of the relevant events on the outcome of the dispute. Under Russian law, one would treat the ‘force majeure certificates’ issued by the CCI (and possibly a refusal to issue the certificate) as a part of evidence in possible future disputes. A (Russian or foreign) court or arbitration tribunal considering this evidence is free to make a different conclusion than that of the Russian CCI or may consider other evidence.
Child abduction in times of corona
By Nadia Rusinova
Currently large increases in COVID-19 cases and deaths continue to be reported from the EU/EEA countries and the UK. In addition, in recent weeks, the European all-cause mortality monitoring system showed increases above the expected rate in Belgium, France, Italy, Malta, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.
It is not unreasonable to predict that COVID-19 will be used increasingly as a justification in law for issuing non-return order by the Court in international child abduction proceedings, return being seen as a “grave risk” for the child and raised as an assertion under Article 13(b) of the Hague Convention.
What would be the correct response to these challenging circumstances, when the best interest of the child in child abduction proceedings calls for restoration of status quo ante under the Hague convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter: the Convention)? This post will focus on the recent judgment [2020] EWHC 834 (Fam), issued on 31 March 2020 by the High Court of England and Wales (Family Division) seen in the light of the ECtHR case law on the child abduction, providing brief analysis and suggesting answer to the question if the return of the child to the state of its habitual residence in the outbreak of COVID-19 can constitute grave risk for the child under Article 13(b) of the Convention, and how the practitioners and the Court should approach these assertions in the present pandemic situation.
The facts of Re PT [2020] EWHC 834 (Fam)
PT (the abducted child) and both of her parents are all Spanish nationals. PT was born in 2008 and had lived all of her life in Spain, until she was brought to England by her mother, HH, in February 2020. She is the only child of the parents’ relationship. They separated in 2009. Following the parents’ separation, legal proceedings were brought in Spain by the mother concerning PT’s welfare. A judgment was issued in these proceedings by the Spanish Courts on 25 May 2012, providing for the mother to have custody and for parental responsibility for the child to be shared by both parties. The order provided for the father to have contact with PT on alternate weekends from after school on Friday until Sunday evening. In addition, she was to spend half of each school holiday with each parent. The order also required that the parents should inform each other of any change in address thirty days in advance.
On or about 13 February 2020, the mother travelled to England with PT. The mother’s partner (with whom she is expecting a child the following month) lives in the South East of England, and they have moved in with him. The evidence on behalf of the father is that the child was removed from Spain by the mother without his knowledge or consent.
The father asked the mother to return PT to Spain, but she refused to do so. The father travelled to the UK and met with the mother and PT at a shopping centre. However, the mother again refused to permit the child to return to Spain. She did however permit PT (and S) to spend a night with the father at his hotel in England.
The case first came before the Court on 10 March 2020 on a “without notice” basis. At that hearing the mother attended in person, and indicated that she would be seeking to defend the application on the basis of (1) the father’s consent and / or acquiescence and (2) Article 13(b) of the Hague convention – claiming existence of a grave risk that a return would expose the child to physical or psychological harm or otherwise place the child in an intolerable situation.
On that occasion PT was, as directed by the judge, present in the Court vicinity to be interviewed by the CAFCASS (Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service) Officer. She told CAFCASS that she had not wanted to come to England, and that she wanted to be with her father, although she did not want to be separated from her mother either. PT’s clear wish was that she wanted to return to Spain with her father rather than stay in England.
The judgment
The Court is entirely satisfied on the evidence that PT is habitually resident in Spain as she had lived there all of her life until she was recently brought to the UK. In this case the Court ruled that PT has been wrongfully removed from Spain within the terms of Article 3 of the Convention and that none of the Article 13 defences have been made out. Therefore, return order for the summary return of PT to Spain has been made.
Comments
First of all, in such cases the Court should unavoidably take the challenge to identify the risks for the child in case of return in the context of the pandemic situation. Indeed, in the present case the formulation is rather simplified. Therefore and due to the lack of case law on this issue, and in order to be able to answer the question if the return of the child would pose a grave risk, we should take a look also at the recently published Guide to Good Practice on Article 13(1)(b) (hereinafter: the Guide) by the Hague Conference On Private International Law (HCCH) and the concept of “grave risk” in child abduction proceedings in general, as set by the ECtHR in its case law.
In general, the grave risk exception in child abduction cases is based on “the primary interest of any person in not being exposed to physical or psychological danger or being placed in an intolerable situation”, as stated in the § 29 of the Explanatory report to the Hague Convention. The general assumption that a prompt return is in the best interests of the child can therefore be rebutted in the individual case where an exception is established. It is important to note that the exception provided for in Article 13(b) concerns only situations which go beyond what a child might reasonably be expected to bear (Ushakov v. Russia § 97, X v. Latvia § 116, Maumousseau and Washington v. France §§ 69 and 73, K.J. v. Poland §§ 64 and 67)
In § 46-48 of the discussed judgment the Court points final argument relates to the risk of physical harm that is presented by the current coronavirus pandemic in the following way:
“…This risk presents itself in two ways:
(1) The pandemic is more advanced in Spain than in the UK. As at the date of the preparation of this judgment (29 March) the official death toll stood at 1,228 in the UK and 6,528 in Spain. It could therefore be argued that PT would be at greater risk of contracting the virus in Spain than in the UK.
(2) The increased risk of infection that is posed by international travel at this time.”
Did the Court explore all possible harm that the return order can bring, and since it is recognized that the risk is present, what specific kind of risk the return of the child would constitute in the context of the pandemic situation – physical or psychological danger, or being placed in an intolerable situation?
The way the Court approached this issue is a very basic attempt to identify the risks that a return order in the outbreak of COVID-19 can bring to the child. As the Guide points in § 31, although separate, the three types of risk are often employed together, and Courts have not always clearly distinguished among them in their decisions. It is clear that the return could bring physical danger of contamination with COVID-19 together with all possible complications, despite the fact that child is not in the at-risk groups as are the elderly or other chronically ill people. But we should not underestimate the psychological aspect of the pandemic situation. As the coronavirus pandemic rapidly sweeps across the world, the World Health Organisation has already, a month earlier, stated that it is inducing a considerable degree of fear, worry, and concern in the population. It is therefore out-of-the-question that for a relatively mature child (in this case of 12 years old), whether the ability to watch, read or listen to news about COVID-19 can make the child feel anxious or distressed and therefore can, and most likely will, bring also psychological harm to it. In this sense the potential psychological harm is inevitable and whilst the physical harm can or cannot happen, and indeed the contamination cannot be foreseen, in any case with the return order (especially to a state with significant risk of increasing community transmission of COVID-19) the psychological integrity of the child will be put at immediate risk.
In order to explore how this risk can be adequately assessed in child abduction proceedings in the context of the COVID-19, we should look at § 62 of the Guide, where HCCH explicitly discusses risks associated with the child’s health, stating that “In cases involving assertions associated with the child’s health, the grave risk analysis must focus on the availability of treatment in the State of habitual residence, and not on a comparison between the relative quality of care in each State”. How is this applicable to the pandemic situation, if at all? It seems like the only adequate response in these fast-changing unprecedented circumstances would be that the Court should indeed not compare the situations in both states, but still having in mind the nature of the COVID-19, to try to foresee the developments, relying on the general and country-specific health organizations reports, accessible nowadays online in a relatively easy way.
As a first step the Court should consider whether the assertions are of such a nature, with sufficient detail and substance that they could constitute a grave risk, as overly broad or general assertions are unlikely to be sufficient. In this situation, without precedent in the history of the Convention’s application, holding that “Although the course of the pandemic is clearly more advanced in Spain than in the UK, I do not have any evidence from which I can draw a conclusion that either country is any more or less safe than the other… I am simply not in a possession to make any findings as to the relative likelihood of contracting the virus in each country. On the material before me, all that I can conclude is that there is a genuine risk that PT could contract the virus whether she remains in England or returns to Spain.” does not fulfil the obligation of the Court to assess the risk in full, in all its possible implications. The Court is obliged to conduct the step-by-step analysis, prescribed by and explained in the Guide, and to examine the types of risk for the child, assessing it separately and in the context of their deep interrelation in these specific circumstances.
Secondly, the wording of Article 13(b) also indicates that the exception is “forward-looking” in that it focuses on the circumstances of the child upon return and on whether those circumstances would expose the child to a grave risk. Therefore, ECtHR is clear that in any case (regardless the context and for sure not only in cases with history of domestic violence), where such assertions have been raised, the Courts should satisfy themselves that adequate safeguards and tangible measures are available in the country of return (Andersena v. Latvia §118, Blaga v. Romania §71).
In addition, as the Guide points in § 53, Article 13(b) analysis should be always be highly factually specific. Each Court determination as to the application or non-application of the exception is therefore unique, based on the particular circumstances of the case. A careful step-by-step analysis of an asserted grave risk is therefore always required, in accordance with the legal framework of the Hague convention, including the exception as explained in the Guide. When we discuss this issue, not only the Convention, but also Article 11(4) of Brussels IIa applies in answering the question of, what in the case of COVID-19 are “adequate safeguards”. This is, without a doubt, a question difficult to answer to with certainty, as the case law of the ECtHR and the Guides do not contain any directions or good practices on the behaviour of the domestic authorities in times of pandemic.
In the present case the judge estimated as “tangible safeguards” the following “number of undertakings”, offered by the father, effective until the matter could be brought before the Spanish Court, and intended to support PT’s return to Spain. They include: (1) Lodging the final order in Spain; (2) Not pursuing any criminal charges against the mother for her wrongful removal of PT from Spain to England; (3) Seeking to mediate with the mother on PT’s return in relation to the mother’s access; (4) Agreeing to unrestricted indirect contact between PT and her maternal family (especially with the mother and S):(5) Agreeing to direct contact for PT with her mother in Spain and England, to the extent that is possible or appropriate from a public health perspective given the current global pandemic;(6) Meeting with the mother only at neutral and/or public places when picking or dropping PT off;(7) To pay PT’s maintenance and school fees pending any further determination about maintenance by the Spanish Courts; and (8) To pay all the travelling costs (flights) for PT of travelling to and from England for the purposes of contact with the mother.”
It looks like the Court is indeed satisfied with the undertakings, but unfortunately, these examples are far from adequate protective measures when we consider the grave risk induced by return in the current pandemic situation. None are directed to prevention of the grave risk as raised by the mother, and none are related to the child’s health. Better examples remain to be seen from the upcoming case law of the Courts, but in the current situation, a strong focus should remain on comprehensive testing and surveillance strategies (including contact tracing), community measures (including physical distancing), strengthening of healthcare systems and informing the public and health community. Therefore, following the Guide, such measures should at the minimum include rapid risk assessment upon arrival at the state of habitual residence, application of different types of available COVID-19 Rapid Tests, ensuring social distance and exploring online education possibilities, providing guarantees that the child will be isolated and distanced from potentially infected people (through evidence for appropriate living conditions upon return), etc. Strong focus should also be put on the possibilities for mental support for the child, bearing in mind the extremely stressful situation, related not only the COVID-19 but also to additional factors such as the separation from the other parent and the mental consequences from the forced social isolation which, as pointed above, would inevitably affect the mental wellbeing of the child.
The next question is who should prove the risk, and its gravity in this specific situation? Following the ECtHR case law, the burden of proof traditionally lies with the party opposing the child’s return (Ushakov v. Russia, § 97). In this case the abducting parent indeed shall prove the grave risk, but it is true that the COVID-19 situation itself and the wide-spread precautions and information contribute a lot to proving this risk. Yet, what in the current pandemic circumstances is still to be proved by the abducting parent?
According to § 49 of the Guide, even if a Court ex officio gathers information or evidence (in accordance with domestic procedures), or if the person or body which has lodged the return application is not actively involved in the proceedings, the Court must be satisfied that the burden of proof to establish the exception has been met by the party objecting to return. However, in these specific circumstances, the national and international situation is developing at such speed that any evidence that could be gathered would be likely to be immediately outdated. Something very convenient for the abducting parent, it would be almost enough if the Court ex officio conducts check on the actual COVID-19 information regarding the state of habitual residence of the child, ensuring it is current when issuing the return or non-return order. However, this does not relieve the opposing party from the procedural obligation to present evidence as accurately as possible, and it remains important that arrangements regarding the “tangible safeguards”, discussed above, are offered and supported by evidence by the party which claims the return order.
There is a further discretionary ground in the Convention which permits a refusal of a return in certain circumstances where the child objects. According to Article 12 UNCRC, the child has the right to express its views freely, these views to be given due weight in accordance with age and maturity, and the Court should carefully examine them together with the other evidence (and not to provide stereotyped reasoning). The COVID-19 limitations raise the question should the child still be heard in this context and, if yes, how this should happen such that the risk for is minimised? Obviously, this right cannot and should not be waived in times when many procedural actions can take place online. It is worth to note that next to the existing legislation, Brussels IIa recast (Regulation 1111/2019, in force as of August 2022) pays special attention to the strengthening of the right of the child to express his or her view, reinforcing it with special provision – Article 26 in Chapter III “International child abduction”, in compliance with a detailed Recital 39. No minimum age is prescribed, but also no rules who can conduct the hearing of the child, how it must happen and where it should be conducted are set. Therefore, the hearing of the child should take place following the general conditions, and while the personal impression will indeed be reduced, and the possibilities to manipulate the child could potentially increase, the unlimited online tools to conduct the hearing eliminate the risk of contamination and offers acceptable solution for this emergency situation.
To get back to the discussed case – Re PT [2020] EWHC 834 (Fam), the Court is satisfied that the Art 13(b) defence has not been made out in this case. Many more comments could be made on the Courts assessment – the best interest of the child is not touched upon, the domestic violence is not discussed at all as an additional assertion, etc. One positive conclusion from procedural point of view is that the urgency has been taken into account, and that the Court made full use of the opportunities to conduct the proceedings online. Of course we cannot say that the return of a child during the COVID-19 pandemic constitutes a grave risk in all child abduction cases– but we can at least begin to build the good practices in this unprecedented time, when the “lockdown” will bring brand new meaning to the notion of “grave risk” under the Convention.
Nadia Rusinova is an attorney-at-law and lecturer in International and European private law at The Hague University, Netherlands. Next to her teaching and research activities, she is a regular ERA speaker and judicial trainer in children’s rights and international family law, delivering multidisciplinary trainings for legal professionals on international child abduction, children’s rights, ECtHR case law in family matters, LGBTQ rights, gender-inclusive language and trafficking of children. She is appointed as an expert in these areas of law in various projects, involving countries of broad geographic range. Originally Bulgarian, she holds an LL.M. degree from Sofia University, and for more than 15 years she has been successfully managing a specialized international family law office in Sofia, Bulgaria.
News
Lex & Forum Vol. 1/2023
This post has been prepared by Prof. Paris Arvanitakis
Corporate cross-border disputes in modern commercial world have taken on a much more complex dimension than in the early years of the EU. Issues such as the relationship between the registered and the real seat (see e.g. CJEU, 27.9.1988, Daily Mail, C-81/87), the possibility of opening a branch in another Member State (e.g. ECJ, 9.3.1999, Centros/Ehrvervs-og, C-212/97), or the safeguarding of the right of free establishment by circumventing contrary national rules not recognizing the legal capacity of certain foreign companies (CJEU, 5.11.2002, Überseering/Nordic Construction, C-208/00), which were dealt with at an early stage by the ECJ/CJEU, now seem obsolete in the face of the onslaught of new transnational corporate forms, cross-border conversions and mergers, the interdependence of groups of companies with scattered parent companies and subsidiaries, or cross-border issues of directors’ liability or piercing the corporate veil, which create complex and difficult problems of substantive, procedural and private international law. These contemporary issues of corporate cross-border disputes were examined during an online conference of Lex&Forum on 23.2.2023, and are the main subject of the present issue (Focus.
In particular, the Preafatio of the issue hosts the valuable thoughts of Advocate General of the CJEU, Ms Laila Medina, on the human-centered character of the European Court’s activity (“People-centered Justice and the European Court of Justice”), while the main issue (Focus) presents the introductory thoughts of the President of the Association of Greek Commercialists, Emeritus Professor Evangelos Perakis, Chair of the event, and the studies of Judge Evangelos Hatzikos on “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-border Corporate Disputes”, of Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Rigas Giovannopoulos on “Cross-border Issues of Lifting the Corporate Veil”, of Dr. Nikolaos Zaprianos on “Directors Civil Liability towards the Legal Person and its Creditors”, of Professor at the University of Thrace Apostolos Karagounidis on the “Corporate Duties and Liability of Multinational Business Groups for Human Rights’ Violations and Environmental Harm under International and EU Law”, and of Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki George Psaroudakis, on “Particularities of cross-border transformations after Directive (EU) 2019/2121”.
The case law section of the issue presents the judgments of the CJEU, 7.4.2022, V.A./V.P., on subsidiary jurisdiction under Regulation 650/2012 (comment by G.-A. Georgiades), and CJEU, 10.2.2022, Share Wood, on the inclusion of a contract of soil lease and cultivation within the Article 6 § 4 c of Rome II Regulation (comment by N. Zaprianos). The present issue also includes judgments of national courts, among which the Cour d’ Appel Paris no 14/20 and OLG München 6U 5042/2019, on the adoption of anti-suit injunctions by European courts in order to prevent a contrary anti-suit injunction by US courts (comment by S. Karameros), are included, as well as the decision of the Italian CassCivile, Sez.Unite n. 38162/22, on the non-recognition of a foreign judgment establishing parental rights of a child born through surrogacy on the grounds of an offence against public policy (comment by I. Valmantonis), as well as the domestic decisions of Thessaloniki Court of First Instance 1201/2022 & 820/2022 on jurisdiction and applicable law in a paternity infringement action (comment by I. Pisina). The issue concludes with the study of the doctoral candidate Ms. Irini Tsikrika, on the applicable law on a claim for damages for breach of an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, and the presentation of practical issues in European payment order matters, edited by the Judge Ms. Eleni Tzounakou.
Second Issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quaterly for 2023
The second issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2023 was published today. It contains the following private international law articles, case notes, and book reviews:
PS Davies & D Foxton, “A View from Westbridge – Arbitrability in the Singapore Court of Appeal”
H Sanderson, “The Divine Comity”
P MacMahon, “Conditional Agreements and Arbitration Law’s Seperability Principle”
A CY Chan & K KC Tse, “The Tort Gateway: The Missing Jigsaw Piece?”
L Zhao & Z Jing, “Conflict of Jurisdiction between the UK and China and Enforcement of Arbitral awards and Judgments”
A Briggs, Book Review of “Freezing Injunctions in Private International Law” by F Šaranovi?
Dutch Journal of PIL (NIPR) – issue 2023/1
The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has been published.
NIPR 2023 issue 1
Editorial
M.H. ten Wolde / p. 1-2
A.V.M. Struycken, Arbitrages in Nederland waarop de Nederlandse rechter geen toezicht kan houden / p. 3-8
Abstract
The Code of Civil Procedure contains a chapter on arbitration. Procedures and awards rendered in the Netherlands are subject to a certain degree of scrutiny by the civil courts. This authority, however, does not extend to arbitration on litigation between private enterprises and a foreign State.
This exception applies to such awards rendered at the Peace Palace under the flag of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This also applies to awards, if rendered in the Netherlands, based on investment treaties like the Washington Convention of 18 March 1965 which created the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). It was correctly recognized by the Act of 1 November 1980 providing for a special rule.
A 1983 proposal to declare that awards rendered by the Iran-US Tribunal situated in The Hague are Dutch awards was not successful. The proposal was only retracted in 2000.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 2016, between the EU and its Member States, on the one side, and Canada, on the other, which was approved for ratification by the Netherlands in July 2022, provides for arbitration in its Articles 27 and 28, within the framework of its investment court system. The recognition and execution of its awards in the Netherlands must still be implemented.
In arbitration based on investment treaties an issue of public international law is involved. This is ignored in Dutch caselaw, however.
N. Touw & I. Tzankova, Parallel actions in cross-border mass claims in the EU: a (comparative) lawyer’s paradise? / p. 9-30
Abstract
In the context of cross-border mass harms, collective redress mechanisms aim to offer (better) access to justice for affected parties and to facilitate procedural economy. Even when national collective redress mechanisms seek to group cases together, it is likely that cross-border parallel actions will still be filed. Parallel actions risk producing irreconcilable judgments with conflicting or inconsistent outcomes and the rules of European private international law aim to reduce this risk. This contribution argues that the rules on parallel actions currently run the risk of not achieving their objective in the context of mass claims and collective redress. Given their lack of harmonization, when collective redress mechanisms with different levels of representation are used, the application of the rules on parallel actions can cause procedural chaos. In addition, judges have a great deal of discretion in applying the rules on parallel actions, whilst there is a lack of guidance on how they should use this discretion and what criteria to apply. They may be unaware of the effects on the access to justice of their decisions to stay or proceed with a parallel collective action. This contribution argues that there should be more awareness about the interaction (and sometimes perhaps even a clash) between the goals of private international law and of collective redress and of how access to justice can come under pressure in the cross-border context when the traditional rules on parallel actions are applied. A stronger focus on the training and education of judges and lawyers in comparative collective redress could be a way forward.
N. Mouttotos, Consent in dispute resolution agreements: The Pechstein case law and the effort to protect weaker parties / p. 31-50
Abstract
The unending Pechstein saga involving the German speed skater and Olympic champion Claudia Pechstein and the International Skating Union has acquired a new interesting turn with the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Among the various interesting questions raised, the issue of party autonomy, especially in instances of inequality in bargaining power, and the resulting compelled consent in dispute resolution agreements is of great relevance for private international law purposes. This article deals with the part of the judgment that focuses on the consensual foundation that underpins arbitration in the sporting context, providing a systematic examination with other areas of the law where other forms of regulation have emerged to remedy the potential lack of consent. This is particularly the case when it involves parties who are regarded as having weaker bargaining power compared to their counterparty. In such cases, procedural requirements have been incorporated in order to ensure the protection of weaker parties. The legal analysis focuses on European private international law, also merging the discussion with substantive contract law and efforts to protect weaker parties by way of providing information. This last aspect is discussed as a remedy to the non-consensual foundation of arbitration in the sporting context.
CASE NOTES
A. Attaibi & M.A.G. Bosman, Forumkeuzebeding in algemene voorwaarden: de ‘hyperlink-jurisdictieclausule’ nader bezien. HvJ EU 24 november 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:923, NIPR 2022-549 (Tilman/Unilever) / p. 51-58
Abstract
Tilman v. Unilever concerns the validity of a jurisdiction clause included in the general terms and conditions contained on a website, in case the general terms and conditions are referenced via a hyperlink in a written B2B contract. The CJEU held that such a jurisdiction clause is valid, provided that the formal requirements of Article 23 Lugano Convention 2007, that ensure the counterparty’s consent to the clause, are met. In this annotation the authors discuss and comment on the CJEU judgment, also in the broader context of earlier CJEU judgments on jurisdiction clauses contained in general terms and conditions.
K.J. Saarloos, Arbitrage en de effectiviteit van de EEX-Verordening naar aanleiding van de schipbreuk van de Prestige in 2002. Hof van Justitie EU 20 juni 2022, zaak C-700/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:488, NIPR 2022-544 (London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd/Spanje) / p. 59-74
Abstract
The CJEU’s ruling in the Prestige case confirms the rule from the J/H Limited case (2022) that a judgment by a court of a Member State is a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of the EEX Regulation if the judgment is or could have been the result of adversarial proceedings. The content of the judgment is not relevant for the definition. Judgments recognising judgments by arbitrators or the courts of third countries are therefore judgments within the meaning of the EEX Regulation. The question of the definition of the term judgment must be distinguished from the material scope of the EEX Regulation. A judgment recognising an arbitral award is not covered by the EEX Regulation’s rules on recognition and enforcement; however, such a judgment may be relevant for the application of the rule that the recognition of the judgment of a court of a Member State may be refused if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the Member State addressed.
The ruling in the Prestige case also makes it clear that a judgment by a Member State court on arbitration cannot impair the effectiveness of the EEX Regulation. If it does, that judgment cannot be opposed to the recognition of an incompatible judgment from the other Member State. The CJEU thus formulates an exception to the rule that a judgment from a Member State may not be recognised if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment in the Member State addressed: that ground for refusal is not applied if the irreconcilable judgment in the requested Member State violates certain rules in the EEX Regulation. The ruling raises questions both in terms of substantiation and implications for the future. It is not convincing to limit a statutory limitation on the effectiveness of the EEX Regulation by invoking the same effectiveness. Moreover, the ruling creates tension with the rule that the New York Convention takes precedence over the EEX Regulation.