Views
Facebook’s further attempts to resist the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Australia futile
Earlier in the year, Associate Professor Jeanne Huang reported on the Australian Information Commission’s action against Facebook Inc in the Federal Court of Australia. In particular, Huang covered Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc [2020] FCA 531, which concerned an ex parte application for service outside of the jurisdiction and an application for substituted service.
In April, Thawley J granted the Commission leave to serve the first respondent (Facebook Inc) in the United States, and the second respondent (Facebook Ireland Ltd) in the Republic of Ireland. Through orders for substituted service, the Commission was also granted leave to serve the relevant documents by email (with respect to Facebook Inc) and by mail (with respect to Facebook Ireland Ltd).
Facebook Inc applied to set aside the orders for its service in the United States, among other things. Facebook Ireland appeared at the hearing of Facebook Inc’s application seeking equivalent orders, although it did not make submissions.
On 14 September, Thawley J refused that application: Australian Information Commissioner v Facebook Inc (No 2) [2020] FCA 1307. The foreign manifestations of Facebook are subject to the Federal Court’s long-arm jurisdiction.
The decision involves an orthodox application of Australian procedure and private international law. The policy represented by the decision is best understood by brief consideration of the context for this litigation.
Background
The Australian Information Commission is Australia’s ‘independent national regulator for privacy and freedom of information’, which promotes and upholds Australians’ rights to access government-held information and to have their personal information protected.
Those legal rights are not as extensive as equivalent rights enjoyed in other places, like the European Union. Australian law offers minimal constitutional or statutory human rights protection at a federal level. Unlike other common law jurisdictions, Australian courts have been reluctant to recognise a right to privacy. Australians’ ‘privacy rights’, in a positivist sense, exist within a rough patchwork of various domestic sources of law.
One of the few clear protections is the Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), (‘Privacy Act’), which (among other things) requires large-ish companies to deal with personal information in certain careful ways, consistent with the ‘Australian Privacy Principles’.
In recent years, attitudes towards privacy and data protection seem to have changed within Australian society. To oversimplify: in some quarters at least, sympathies are becoming less American (ie, less concerned with ‘free speech’ above all else), and more European (ie, more concerned about privacy et al). If that description has any merit, then it would be due to events like the notorious Cambridge Analytica scandal, which is the focus of this litigation.
Various manifestations of Australian governments have responded to changing societal attitudes by initiating law reform inquiries. Notably, in 2019, the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (‘ACCC’) delivered its final report on its Digital Platforms Inquiry, recommending that Australian law be reformed to better address ‘the implications and consequences of the business models of digital platforms for competition, consumers, and society’. The broad-ranging inquiry considered overlapping issues in data protection, competition and consumer protection—including reform of the Privacy Act. The Australian Government agreed with the ACCC that Australian privacy laws ought to be strengthened ‘to ensure they are fit for purpose in the digital age’. A theme of this report is that the foreign companies behind platforms like Facebook should be better regulated to serve the interests of Australian society.
Another important part of the context for this Facebook case is Australia’s media environment. Australia’s ‘traditional’ media companies—those that produce newspapers and television—are having a hard time. Their business models have been undercut by ‘digital platforms’ like Facebook and Google. Many such traditional media companies are owned by News Corp, the conglomerate driven by sometime-Australian Rupert Murdoch (who is responsible for Fox News. On behalf of Australia: sorry everyone). These companies enjoy tremendous power in the Australian political system. They have successfully lobbied the Australian government to force the foreign companies behind digital platforms like Google to pay Australian companies for news.
All of this is to say: now more than ever, there is regulatory appetite and political will in Australia to hold Facebook et al accountable.
Procedural history
Against that backdrop, in March 2020, the Commission commenced proceedings against each of the respondents in the Federal Court, alleging ‘that the personal information of Australian Facebook users was disclosed to the This is Your Digital Life app for a purpose other than the purpose for which the information was collected, in breach of the Privacy Act’.
The Commissioner alleges that:
- Facebook disclosed the users’ personal information for a purpose other than that for which it was collected, in breach Australian Privacy Principle (‘APP’) 6;
- Facebook failed to take reasonable steps to protect the users’ personal information from unauthorised disclosure in breach of APP 11.1(b); and
- these breaches amounted to serious and/or repeated interferences with the privacy of the users, in contravention of s 13G of the Privacy Act.
In April, the service orders reported by Huang were made. Facebook Inc and Facebook Ireland were then served outside of the jurisdiction.
Facebook’s challenge to the orders for service outside of the jurisdiction: ‘no prima facie case’
Facebook Inc contended that service should be set aside because the Court should not be satisfied that there was a prima facie case for the relief claimed by the Commissioner as required by r 10.43(4)(c) of the Federal Court Rules 2011 (Cth).
The Court summarised the principles applicable to setting aside an order as to service as follows (at [23]):
- An application for an order discharging an earlier order granting leave to serve out of the jurisdiction, or for an order setting aside such service, is in the nature of a review by way of rehearing of the original decision to grant leave to serve out of the jurisdiction.
- It is open to the party who sought and obtained an order for service out of the jurisdiction to adduce additional evidence, and make additional submissions.
- The onus remains on the applicant in the proceedings to satisfy the Court in light of the material relied upon, including any additional material relied upon, that leave ought to have been granted.
Facebook Inc accepted that although demonstrating a prima facie case is ‘not particularly onerous’, the Commissioner had failed to establish an arguable case; she had merely posited ‘inferences’ which did not reasonably arise from the material tendered: [28]-[29].
As noted above, the underlying ‘case’ that was the subject of that argument is in relation to the Cambridge Analytica scandal and alleged breaches of the Privacy Act.
The case thus turns on application of an Australian statute to seemingly cross-border circumstances. Rather than having regard to forum choice-of-law rules, the parties seemingly accepted that the case turns on statutory interpretation. The extra-territorial application of the Privacy Act depends on an organisation having an ‘Australian Link’. Section 5B(3) relevantly provides:
(3) An organisation or small business operator also has an Australian link if all of the following apply: …
(b) the organisation or operator carries on business in Australia or an external Territory;
(c) the personal information was collected or held by the organisation or operator in Australia or an external Territory, either before or at the time of the act or practice.
Facebook Inc argued that the Commissioner failed to establish a prima facie case that, at the relevant time, Facebook Inc:
- carried on business in Australia within the meaning of s 5B(3)(b) of the Privacy Act; or
- collected or held personal information in Australia within the meaning of s 5B(3)(c) of the Privacy Act.
Facebook Inc carries on business in Australia
In Tiger Yacht Management Ltd v Morris (2019) 268 FCR 548 (noted here), the Full Court of the Federal Court of Australia ‘observed that the expression “carrying on business” may have a different meaning in different contexts and that, where used to ensure jurisdictional nexus, the meaning will be informed by the requirement for there to be sufficient connection with the country asserting jurisdiction’: [40].
The Court considered the statutory context of the Commissioner’s case, being the application of Australian privacy laws to foreign entities. The Court had regard to the objects of the Privacy Act, which include promotion of the protection of privacy of individuals and responsible and transparent handling of personal information by entities: Privacy Act s 2A(b), (d). Whether Facebook Inc ‘carries on business in Australia’ for the purposes of the Privacy Act is a factual inquiry that should be determined with reference to those broader statutory purposes.
The Commissioner advanced several arguments in support of the proposition that Facebook Inc carries on business in Australia.
One argument advanced by the Commissioner was that Facebook Inc had financial control of foreign subsidiaries carrying on business in Australia, suggesting that the parent company was carrying on business in Australia. (Cf Tiger Yacht, above.) That argument was rejected: [155].
Another argument turned on agency more explicitly. Essentially, the Commissioner sought to pierce the corporate veil by arguing Facebook is ‘a single worldwide business operated by multiple entities’: [75]. Those entities contract with one another so that different aspects of the worldwide business are attributed to different entities, but the court ought to pierce the jurisdictional veil. The Commissioner submitted that ‘the performance pursuant to the contractual arrangements by Facebook Inc of functions necessary for Facebook Ireland to provide the Facebook service…, including in Australia, indicated that Facebook Ireland was a convenient entity through which Facebook Inc carried on business in Australia during the relevant period’: [115].
Facebook Inc appealed to cases like Adams v Cape Industries [1990] 1 Ch 433, where the English Court of Appeal explained that, typically, a company would not be considered to be carrying on business within the forum unless: ‘(a) it has a fixed place of business of its own in this country from which it has carried on business through servants or agents, or (b) it has had a representative here who has had the power to bind it by contract and who has carried on business at or from a fixed place of business in this country’ (at 529). (See also Lucasfilm Ltd v Ainsworth [2008] EWHC 1878 (Ch).)
Ultimately, the Court was not satisfied that Facebook Inc carried on business within Australia on the basis that Facebook Ireland conducted Facebook Inc’s business in Australia: [117]. More accurately, the Commissioner had not established a prima facie case to that effect.
But the Commissioner had established a prima facie case that Facebook Inc directly carried on business within Australia.
Facebook Inc is responsible for various ‘processing operations’ in relation to the Facebook platform, which includes responsibility for installing, operating and removing cookies on the devices of Australian users. Facebook Inc appealed to case authority to argue that this activity did not amount to carrying on business in Australia. The Court thus considered cases like Dow Jones v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575 and Valve Corporation v Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (2017) 258 FCR 190, which each addressed the territorial aspects of businesses that depend on communication on the internet.
The Court rejected Facebook Inc’s argument that ‘installing’ cookies is to be regarding as equivalent to uploading and downloading a document (cf Gutnick). At the interlocutory stage of the proceeding, there was not enough evidence to accept Facebook Inc’s claim; but there was enough to draw the inference that the installation and operation of cookies within Australia involves activity in Australia.
The Court concluded: ‘the Commissioner has discharged her onus of establishing that it is arguable, and the inference is open to be drawn, that some of the data processing activities carried on by Facebook Inc can be regarded as having occurred in Australia, notwithstanding that the evidence did not establish that any employee of Facebook Inc was physically located in Australia’: [137]. It was thus concluded that the Commissioner had established a prima facie case that Facebook Inc carried on business within Australia: [156]. (Cf the reasoning of Canadian courts that led to Google Inc v Equustek Solutions Inc [2017] 1 SCR 824, noted here.)
Facebook Inc collected or held personal information in Australia
The Court was assisted by responses provided by Facebook Inc to questions of the Commissioner made pursuant to her statutory powers of investigation. One question concerned the location and ownership of servers used to provide the Facebook service. Although Facebook Inc’s answer was somewhat equivocal, it suggested that the platform depends on servers located in Australia (including network equipment and caching servers) to improve connection and delivery time. This was enough for the Court to make the relevant inference as to collection and holding of personal information within Australia: [170].
The Court had regard to the purposes manifested by the Explanatory Memorandum to the Privacy Act in concluding that ‘the fact that the personal information is uploaded in Australia and stored on Australian users’ devices and browser caches and on caching servers arguably owned or operated by Facebook Inc in Australia, it is arguable that Facebook Inc collected the personal information in Australia’: [185].
Combined with the findings as to carrying on business, this was enough to establish a prima facie case that the extra-territorial application of the Privacy Act was engaged. The Court’s orders as to service were not disturbed.
Concluding remarks
The interlocutory character of this decision should be emphasised. The Court’s findings on the territorial aspects of ‘carrying on business’ and data collection were each subject to the ‘prima facie case’ qualification. These are issues of fact; the Court may find differently after a thorough ventilation of evidence yet to be adduced.
This decision is not anomalous. The assertion of long-arm jurisdiction over Facebook Inc indicates Australian courts’ increasing willingness to pierce the jurisdictional veil for pragmatic ends. In my experience, most Australian lawyers do not really care about the multilateralist ideals of many private international law enthusiasts. The text of the Australian statutes that engage the case before them is paramount. Lawyers are directed to consider the text of the statute in light of its context and purpose: Australian Securities and Investments Commission v King (2020) 94 ALJR 293, [23]; Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth) s 15AA. Essentially, in the case of a forum statute with putative extraterritorial operation, a form of interest analysis is mandated.
I am OK with this. If the policy of the Privacy Act is to have any chance of success, it depends on its application to internet intermediaries comprised of corporate groups with operations outside of Australia. As an island continent in a technologically interconnected world, the policy of Australian substantive law will increasingly determine the policy of Australian private international law.
Michael Douglas is Senior Lecturer at UWA Law School and Consultant at Bennett + Co, Perth.
US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the US Supreme Court and the Hague Service Convention: is reform necessary?
Written by Danilo Ruggero Di Bella,
attorney-at-law (Bottega DI BELLA), member of the Madrid Bar and the Canadian Institute for International Law Expertise (CIFILE)
The USA is a Contracting Party to the 1965 Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents in Civil and Commercial Matters (the “Hague Service Convention”, which it ratified in 1967. The Hague Service Convention is a multilateral treaty whose purpose is to simplify, standardize, and generally expedite the process of serving documents abroad, thus it plays a central role in international litigation. The Hague Service Convention specifies several allowed methods of service to provide due notice of a proceeding in one Contracting State to a party in another.
The primary method (and main alternative to service through diplomatic channels) — laid out in Articles 2 to 7 of the Convention — is via a designated Central Authority in each Contracting State. When a Central Authority receives a request for service, it must serve the documents or arrange for their service. This method is usually faster than service through diplomatic and consular agents (which remain available under Article 8 of the Convention), along with the possibility that two or more Contracting States may agree to permit channels of transmission of judicial documents other than those provided for in the Convention.
Further, at Article 19 the Convention clarifies that it does not preempt any internal laws of its Contracting States that permit service from abroad via methods not otherwise allowed by the Convention. Thus, it could be argued that a sort of favor summonitio (borrowed by the principle of favor contractus) permeates the entire instrument, in that the Convention strikes a fair balance between the formal notice of a proceeding and the validity of an effective summon in favor of the latter, to allow for swift international litigations. Indeed, another fast method of service expressly approved by the Convention is through postal channels, unless the receiving State objects by making a reservation to Article 10(a) of the Convention. This is considered the majority view shared by multiple jurisdictions. However, in the United States different interpretations existed on this point, because Article 10(a) of the Convention does not expressly refer to “service” of judicial documents (it instead uses the term “send”). Consequently, it was an unsettled question whether Article 10(a) encompassed sending documents by postal channels abroad for the purpose of service, until the US Supreme Court has been called to interpret this instrument.
US Supreme Court’s interpretation of Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention
The USA did not make any reservation objecting to service by mail under Article 10 of the Convention. In Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, 581 U.S. ___ (2017), the US Supreme Court pronounced itself on Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention to resolve these conflicting views, according to some of which the Convention was to be read as prohibiting service by mail.
After a detailed contextual treaty interpretation and also a comparison of the text with the French version (equally authentic), the US Supreme Court found that that Article 10(a) unmistakably allows for service by mail. The Supreme Court further clarified that “this does not mean that the Convention affirmatively authorizes service by mail.” It held that “in cases governed by the Hague Service Convention, service by mail is permissible if two conditions are met: first, the receiving state has not objected to service by mail; and second, service by mail is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.” This means that it is not The Hague Service Convention to authorize service by mail, but it must be the lex fori to do so (the Convention simply permits service by mail). So, where the Convention applies, it is not enough to make sure that a summon effectuated abroad is valid under the Convention just because that foreign jurisdiction allows for service by international registered mail. It further must be ascertained that the jurisdiction in which the case is pending authorizes service by mail requiring a signed receipt. However, by a simple reading of the US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, it is possible to note how this set of rules misunderstood the scope of The Hague Service Convention.
The US Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Hague Service Convention
In cases pending before a US federal court where the Hague Convention applies and where the foreign jurisdiction (in which the defendant resides or is registered) allows for service by mail, the plaintiff – who serves the defendant abroad – should further wonder whether US Federal law authorizes serving the defendant in a foreign country by mail.
Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (FRCP), dealing with summons, answers this question. In particular, Rule 4(h)(2) FRCP deals with serving a corporation abroad by remanding to Rule 4(f) FRCP, which in turn deals with serving an individual. So, the same rule applies to serving either an individual or a corporation abroad. Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP makes express reference to the Hague Service Convention:
“(f) Serving an Individual in a Foreign Country. Unless federal law provides otherwise, an individual—other than a minor, an incompetent person, or a person whose waiver has been filed—may be served at a place not within any judicial district of the United States:
(1) by any internationally agreed means of service that is reasonably calculated to give notice, such as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;”
However, as stated by the US Supreme Court in Water Splash, Inc. v. Menon, the fact that Article 10(a) of the Hague Service Convention encompasses service by mail does not mean that it affirmatively authorizes such service. Rather, service by mail is permissible if the receiving State has not objected to service by mail and if such service is authorized under otherwise-applicable law.
Probably, the words “[…]as those authorized by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;” in Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP should be more correctly rephrased with “[…]as those allowed by the Hague Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extrajudicial Documents;” in order to be in line with the jurisprudence of the US Supreme Court.
So, as Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP does not provide the final answer, the plaintiff needs to look at Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) FRCP, which expressly authorizes the use of any form of mail that requires a signed receipt.
Hence, in cases pending before a federal US court where the Hague Service Convention applies and the receiving states permits service by mail, a plaintiff may serve a company or an individual abroad by means of international registered mail by virtue of Rule 4(f)(2)(C)(ii) FRCP (rather than Rule 4(f)(1) FRCP remanding to The Hague Service Convention). Consequently, the FRCP should be amended to avoid further misunderstandings as to the scope of application of the Hague Service Convention by replacing the word authorized with the term allowed at Rule 4(f)(1).
Ethiopia’s Ratification of Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards: A reflection
Written by Bebizuh Mulugeta Menkir, Lecturer of Laws, University of Gondar
babimulugeta@gmail.com
Ethiopia, located in east Africa, is the second most populous country in the continent. The Ethiopian parliament has recently ratified, through proclamation No 1184/2020[1], the “Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards” which is commonly known as “New York Convention” (here after referred as “the Convention”). This short piece aims to reflect some points in reaction to this ratification proclamation, specifically changes that this will bring to the approach to arbitration in Ethiopia.
As stated in the Convention, state parties are obliged to recognize and give effect to arbitral agreements including an arbitral clause; and ordinary courts are precluded from exercising their jurisdiction on the merits of the case.[2] In addition, unless in exceptional circumstances recognized under the convention, foreign arbitral awards shall be enforced just like domestic arbitral awards.[3]
By ratifying the Convention, Ethiopia undertakes to perform the above-mentioned and other obligations of the Convention. As a result, some of the hitherto debatable issues are addressed by the terms of the Convention. For instance, the Ethiopian Supreme Court cassation bench had previously passed a decision that rejects the parties’ agreement that makes the outcome of the arbitration to be final.[4] In its decision, the cassation bench contends that its mandate given by the Ethiopian constitution as well as the “Federal Courts Proclamation re-amendment Proclamation No 454/1997” cannot be limited by an arbitration finality clause. But now, this power of cassation can be taken to have ceased at least in relation to cases falling under the scope of application of the Convention.
The declarations and reservation that Ethiopia has entered while ratifying the Convention should not be forgotten though. As such, Ethiopia will apply the Convention only in relation to arbitral awards made in the territory of another contracting state.[5] In the Civil Procedure Code of Ethiopia, Art 458 and Art 461(1) (a), the law that had been in force before the ratification of the Convention, reciprocity was one of the requirements that need to be fulfilled before recognizing and giving effect to the terms of foreign judgments as well as foreign arbitral awards.
Ethiopian courts require the existence of a reciprocity treaty signed between Ethiopia and the forum state whose judgment is sought to be recognized or enforced.[6] It is fair to assume that Ethiopian courts would have the same stand in relation to foreign arbitral awards. And Art 2(1) has fulfilled this requirement because the arbitral award has been given in the member state to the Convention by itself warrants the recognition and enforcement of the award in Ethiopia.
Moreover, Ethiopia also declares that “the convention will apply on differences arising out of legal relationships, whether contractual or not, which are considered commercial under the National Law of Ethiopia.”[7] But here, a national law that provides a comprehensive list or definition of commercial activities hardly exists. As a result, while giving effect to the terms of the Convention, Ethiopian courts are expected to answer what sort of activities shall be deemed to be commercial activities according to Ethiopian law.
The definition contained under Art 2(6) of the “Trade Competition and Consumers Protection Proclamation” will provide some help in identifying “commercial activities” in Ethiopia. Accordingly, “Commercial activities are activities performed by a business person as defined under sub-Art 5 of this article.”[8] And Art 2(5) defines a business person as “any person who professionally and for gain carries on any of the activities specified under Art 5 of the Commercial Code, or who dispenses services or who carries those commercial activities designed as such by law”. [9] Moreover, it is to be noted that the “Commercial Registration and Licensing Proclamation (Proclamation No. 980/2016)” also provides the same kind of definition for commercial activities.[10]
From the combined reading of the above provisions, commercial activities are those activities listed under Art 5 of the Commercial Code, when they are performed by a person professionally and for gain. However, this cannot be a comprehensive answer to the question, as there can be areas other than those listed under Art 5 of the Commercial Code that can be characterized as commercial activities. In addition, there are numerous service deliveries that can be considered as commercial activities. In such cases, Ethiopian courts will have to consult other domestic laws and decide whether the activity in question can be considered as commercial or not.
Last but not least, even if ratified treaties are declared to be an integral part of the law of Ethiopia[11], the domestic application of treaties whose contents have not been published in domestic law gazette has been a debatable issue for long. As there are points that are not incorporated under the ratification proclamation, the same problem may probably arise in relation to the New York Convention. To avoid this challenge, the Ethiopian parliament should have published the provisions of the Convention together with the ratification proclamation.[12] As per its responsibility under Art 5 of the ratification proclamation the Federal Attorney General, should at least have the Convention translated to Ethiopian working languages.
[1] The Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards Ratification Proclamation, Proclamation No 1184/2020, Federal Negarit Gazette, 26th year No 1, Addis Ababa, 13th March 2020.
[2] Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards (1958), Art. II(1),(2),(3)
[4] National Mineral Corporation Plc. vs. Danni Drilling plc., Federal Supreme Court, cassation bench
[5] Ratification Proclamation, supra note 1, Art 2(1)
[6] See paulos papassinus case, Federal Supreme court File no 1769/88; Yosera Abdulmuen et al. vs. Abdulkeni Abdulmuen, Federal Supreme Court of Ethiopia, Cassation Bench , Fed Sup. Court File No 78206
[7] Ratification Proclamation, supra note 1, Art 2(2)
[8] Trade Competition and Consumers Protection Proclamation, Proclamation No 813/2013, Federal Negarit Gazette, 20th year No 28, Addis Ababa, 21st March 2013, Art 2(6)
[10] The Commercial Registration and Licensing Proclamation, Proclamation No 980/2016, Federal Negarit Gazette, 22nd year No. 101, Addis Ababa, 5th August 2016, Art 2(2)&(3)
[11] Constitution of Federal Democratic Republic of Ethiopia, Proclamation No 1/1995, Federal Negarit Gazette, 1st year No.1 , Addis Ababa, 21st August 1995, Art 9(4)
[12] International Agreements Making and Ratification Procedure (Proclamation No 1024/2017) states that “The House of Peoples’ Representatives may decide to publish the provisions of the international agreements with the ratification proclamation.”(Art. 11)
News
The European Parliament’s last plenary session & Private International Law
This post was written by Begüm Kilimcio?lu (PhD researcher), Thalia Kruger (Professor) and Tine Van Hof (Guest professor and postdoctoral researcher), all of the University of Antwerp.
During the last plenary meeting of the current composition of the European Parliament (before the elections of June 2024), which took place from Monday 22 until Thursday 24 April, several proposals relevant to private international law were put to a vote (see the full agenda of votes and debates). All of the regulations discussed here still have to be formally approved by the Council of the European Union before they become binding law, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.
It is interesting to note that, while many pieces of new legislation have a clear cross-border impact in civil matters, not all of them explicitly address private international law. While readers of this blog are probably used to the discrepancies this has led to in various fields of the law, it is still worth our consideration.
First, the European Parliament voted on and adopted the proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) with 374 votes in favour, 235 against and 19 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). The text adopted is the result of fierce battles between the Commission, Parliament and the Council and also other stakeholders such as civil society, academics and practitioners. This necessitated compromise and resulted in a watered-down version of the Commission’s initial proposal of 23 February 2022 and does not go as far as envisaged in the European Parliament’s Resolution of 10 March 2021 (see also earlier blog pieces by Jan von Hein, Chris Tomale, Giesela Rühl, Eduardo Álvarez-Armas and Geert van Calster).
The Directive is one of the few instruments worldwide that put legally-binding obligations on multinational enterprises. It lays down obligations for companies regarding their adverse actual and potential human rights and environmental impacts, with respect to their own operation, the operations of their subsidiaries, and the operations carried out by their business partners in the chains of activities. The Directive further stipulates specific measures that companies have to take to prevent, mitigate or bring an end to their actual or potential adverse human rights impacts. Besides national supervisory authorities for the oversight of the implementation of the obligations, the Directive enacts civil liability for victims of corporate harm.
The adopted Directive is more or less silent on private international law. The closest it gets to addressing our field of the law is Article 29(7), placing the duty on Member States to ensure the mandatory nature of civil remedies:
Member States shall ensure that the provisions of national law transposing this Article are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.
and Recital 90, which is more general:
In order to ensure that victims of human rights and environmental harm can bring an action for damages and claim compensation for damage caused when the company intentionally or negligently failed to comply with the due diligence obligations stemming from this Directive, this Directive should require Member States to ensure that the provisions of national law transposing the civil liability regime provided for in this Directive are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to such claims is not the national law of a Member State, as could for instance be the case in accordance with international private law rules when the damage occurs in a third country. This means that the Member States should also ensure that the requirements in respect of which natural or legal persons can bring the claim, the statute of limitations and the disclosure of evidence are of overriding mandatory application. When transposing the civil liability regime provided for in this Directive and choosing the methods to achieve such results, Member States should also be able to take into account all related national rules to the extent they are necessary to ensure the protection of victims and crucial for safeguarding the Member States’ public interests, such as its political, social or economic organisation.
While the text contains references to numerous existing Regulations, Brussels I and Rome I are not among them; not even a precursory or confusing reference as in Recital 147 of the GDRP.
Second, the European Parliament voted on two other proposals that build on and implement the objectives of the European Green Deal and the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. The first is a proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for setting eco-design requirements for sustainable products with 455 votes in favour, 99 against and 54 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). The Regulation aims to reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of products by improving the products’ durability, reusability, upgradability, reparability etc. It sets design requirements for products that will be placed on the market, and establishes a digital product certificate to inform consumers.
This Regulation does not contain a private-international-law type connecting factor for contracts or products. Neither does it expressly elevate its provisions to overriding rules of mandatory law (to at least give us some private international law clue). Its scope is determined by the EU’s internal market. All products that enter the European market have to be in conformity with the requirements of both regulations, also those that are produced in third countries and subsequently imported on the European market (Art. 3(1)). “Products that enter the market” is the connecting factor, or the basis for applying the Regulation as overriding mandatory law. The Regulation is silent on products that exit the market. Hopefully the result will not be that products that were still in the production cycle at the time of entry into force will simply be exported out of the EU.
The third adopted proposal is the Regulation on packaging and packaging waste with 476 votes in favour, 129 against and 24 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). This Regulation aims to reduce the amount of packaging placed on the Union market, ensuring the environmental sustainability of the packaging that is placed on the market, preventing the generation of packaging waste, and the collection and treatment of packaging waste that has been generated. To reach these aims, the regulation’s key measures include phasing out certain single-use plastics by 2030, minimizing so called “forever chemicals” chemicals in food packaging, promoting reuse and refill options, and implementing separate collection and recycling systems for beverage containers by 2029.
Like the Eco-design Regulation, no word on Private International Law, no references. The Regulation refers to packaging “placed on the market” in various provisions (most notably Art. 4(1)) and recitals (e.g. Recitals 10 and 14).
Lastly, the European Parliament approved the proposal for a regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market with an overwhelming majority of 555 votes in favour, 6 against and 45 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market while also contributing to the fight against forced labour (including forced child labour). Economic operators are to eliminate forced labour from their operations through the pre-existing due diligence obligations under Union law. It introduces responsible authorities and a database of forced labour risk areas or products.
Just as is the case for the other Regulations, this Regulation does not contain references to private international law instruments, and no explicit reference to instruments in this field, even though the implementation of the Regulation requires vigilance throughout the value chain. It would be correct to assume that this provides overriding mandatory law, as the ban on forced labour is generally accepted to be jus cogens even though the extent of this ban is contentious (see Franklin).
Other proposals that are more clearly in the domain of private international law have not (yet?) reached the finish line. First, in the procedure on the dual proposals in the field of the protection of adults of 31 May 2023, the European Parliament could either adopt them or introduce amendments at first reading. However, these proposals have not reached the plenary level before the end of term and it will thus be for the Conference of Presidents to decide at the beginning of the new parliamentary term whether the consideration of this ‘unfinished business’ can be resumed or continued (Art. 240 Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament).
In the second file, the proposal for a Regulation in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood of 7 December 2022 the European Parliament was already consulted and submitted its opinion in a Resolution of 14 December 2023. It is now up to the Council of the European Union to decide unanimously (according to the procedure in Art. 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). It can either adopt the amended proposal or amend the proposal once again. In the latter case the Council has to notify or consult (in case of substantial amendments) the European Parliament again.
Ficticious service still active outside Europe
With the EU Service Regulation being active for more than 20 years, and the Hague Service Convention being ratified by almost all European countries, there is little space for practicing fictitious service of proceedings in Europe. However, for service to third countries outside Europe, and especially to continents, such as Africa, Asia, and the Middle East, remise au parquet is still the ground rule for many European countries. A recent judgment issued by the Piraeus Court of Appeal provides a clear picture of how the mechanism operates in Greece [Piraeus Court of Appeal, judgment nr. 142/2024, available here].
I. THE FACTS:
The parties are two companies active in the international maritime sector. The claimant, a Greek company with its seat in Piraeus, filed an action before the Piraeus Court of First Instance, seeking the award of the total sum of $29,163,200. The defendant, an Iranian company with its seat in Tehran, did not appear in the hearing. The action was upheld as being well founded in substance by the Piraeus Court of 1st Instance. The defendant was ordered to pay the equivalent of $28. 663,200.
Both the action and the first instance judgment were duly served on the Piraeus District Attorney, in accordance with the provisions of Articles 134 §§ 1 and 2, and 136 § 1 Code of Greek Civil Procedure (henceforth CCP), due to the defendant’s domicile in a non-member state of the European Union, thus excluding the application of EU law, and because Iran has not acceded to the Hague Convention of 15 November 1965, which requires actual service of documents by one of the methods provided for therein. Finally, the court underlined the absence of a bilateral agreement between Iran and Greece, which would possibly regulate the issues of service in a different manner.
The defendant lodged an appeal. The appeal was however untimely filed, because it was brought after the expiry of the sixty [60] days period following service of the judgment, provided for in Article 518 § 1 CCP, which began with the fictitious service of the judgment on the Public Prosecutor, to be sent to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in order to be transmitted through diplomatic channels to the addressee, as provided for by Article 134 §§ 1 and 3 CCP.
The Iranian company acknowledged that the time-limit had expired without effect. For this reason, it filed a request for restitutio in integrum in accordance with Article 152 CCP, requesting that the appeal be considered as timely lodged, claiming that the delay in lodging the appeal was due to force majeure. In particular, it is asserted that the Iranian company did not receive notification of both the claim, which resulted in a default judgment without its participation in the trial at first instance, and of the judgment given in default of appearance, due to the service method selected, i.e., ficticious service to the Public Prosecutor, which sets the time-limit for the appeal. Secondly, the appellant asserts that that it acted within the time-limit laid down in Article 153 CCP, that is to say, immediately after real service.
The appellant invokes the delay caused by the Piraeus Prosecutor’s Office and the diplomatic services of the Country, which did not take care to complete service within two months. In other words, it relies on the omission of third parties, which it could not prevent, and which prevented the appellant from being aware of the fictitious service and the commencement of the time-limit for lodging an appeal in Greece.
II.THE JUDGMENT OF THE PIRAEUS COURT OF APPEAL
The appellate court ruled as follows: The lawsuit was forwarded by the Piraeus Prosecutor’s Office to the Minister of Foreign Affairs, in order to be served at the defendant’s headquarters in Tehran. The diplomatic authorities of Greece did indeed send and their counterparts in Iran did receive and forward the statement of claim to its addressee. However, the Iranian company’s agents, namely the secretariat and the clerk in the Legal Affairs Department, refused to receive it. This is evident from the “Letter of confirmation for declaration of received documents from foreign countries” issued by the International Affairs Department of the Judiciary of the Islamic Republic of Iran. This document states that the defendant, through its aforementioned nominees, refused to receive the disputed “document”.
The reason for that refusal is not specified. However, from the document of the Consular Office of the Embassy of Greece in Iran, and the attached document of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Islamic Republic of Iran, it can be inferred that the refusal was made because the document to be served was not accompanied by an official translation into Farsi. Iranian law does indeed appear to permit refusal to accept service of a foreigner’s statement of claim against an Iranian national on that ground (a legal opinion of Mr., a lawyer at the Central Iranian Bar Association was submitted to the CoA by the appellant). Still, domestic Greek law does not make the validity of service of an action dependent on the attachment of a translated copy of the action in the language of the State of destination. Therefore, service of the action, if it had been completed, would always be valid under Greek law.
In addition, the mere attempt to serve the action made it clear to the defendant in any event, irrespective of whether it had been aware of its content from the outset, that a claim has being brought against it in a Greek court and triggered its obligation under Article 116 CCP to monitor the progress of the proceedings from that time onwards, even if it chose not to participate in the proceedings, which the defendant was able to do, by behaving in a prudent and diligent manner, and by following the fate of the action brought in Greece.
To that end, it was sufficient simply to appoint a lawyer in Greece, who would arrange for the translation of the documents, and would attend the ongoing proceedings at first instance. Such an action was made by the appellant only after actual service of the judgment.
Similarly, the applicant does not explain the reason why it did not act by appointing a lawyer in Greece, after the refusal to receive the summons of the claimant, even though it was also sent to it accompanied by a translation of the summons in English. That omission gives the impression that the refusal to receive the summons was made in order to prolong the proceedings, and to prepare for the lodging of the appeal and the application for restitutio in integrum, which on the whole is considered to be abusive.
Consequently, the application for restitutio in integrum was dismissed as unfounded and the appeal, which was nevertheless brought out of time, was dismissed as inadmissible.
III. COMMENT
The judgment of the Piraeus CoA is interesting because it goes a step further in the examination of fictitious service: It did not simply reiterate the wording of the domestic rules; moreover, it scrutinized the facts, and avoided a stringent application of Article 134 CCP. Due process and right to be heard were included in the court’s analysis. Finally, the court dismissed the legal remedies of the appellant due to its reluctance to demonstrate proactivity, and its intention to bring the Greek proceedings to a stalemate.
[Out Now!] New Open Access Book on Corruption and Investment Arbitration: Nobumichi Teramura, Luke Nottage and Bruno Jetin (eds), Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Arbitration (Springer, 2024)
Nobumichi TERAMURA (Assistant Professor, Universiti Brunei Darussalam; Affiliate, Centre for Asian and Pacific Law in the University of Sydney), Luke Nottage (Professor of Comparative and Transnational Business Law, Sydney Law School) and Bruno Jetin (Associate Professor of Economics, Universiti Brunei Darussalam) published an edited volume entitled “Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Arbitration” from Springer on 20 April 2024. The book is an open access title, so it is freely available to any states and organisations, including less well-resourced institutions in transitioning economies. Corrupt behaviour by foreign investors, like bribery to local government officials, faces wide condemnation in any society. Nevertheless, there remains a paucity of research appraising the consequences of corruption and illegality affecting international investment in Asia, especially investment arbitration involving East and South Asian jurisdictions. This book intends to fill the gap from an interdisciplinary (legal-economic) perspective.
The volume’s description reads as follows:
This open access book explores Asian approaches towards investment arbitration—a transnational procedure to resolve disputes between a foreign investor and a host state—setting it in the wider political economy and within domestic law contexts. It considers the extent to which significant states in Asia are, or could become, “rule makers” rather than “rule takers” regarding corruption and serious illegality in investor-state arbitration. Corruption and illegality in international investment are widely condemned in any society, but there remains a lack of consensus on the consequences, especially in investment arbitration. A core issue addressed is whether a foreign investor violating a host state’s law should be awarded protection of its investment, as per its contract with the host state and/or the applicable investment or trade agreement between the home state and the host state. Some suggest such protection would be unnecessary as the investor committed a crime in the host state, while others attempt to establish an equilibrium between the investor and the host state. Others claim to protect investment, invoking the sanctity of promises made. The book starts with a deep dive into economic and legal issues in corruption and investment arbitration and then explores the situation and issues in major countries in the region in detail. It is a useful reference point for lawyers, economists, investors, and government officials who are seeking comprehensive and up-to-date information on anti-bribery rules in Asian investment treaties. It is of particular interest to students and researchers in economics, finance, and law, who are undertaking new research relating to the multifaceted impacts of corruption.
The book’s table of contents is as follows:
Chapter 1 – “Bribery and Other Serious Investor Misconduct in Asian International Arbitration” by Nobumichi Teramura, Luke Nottage and Bruno Jetin;
Chapter 2 – “Does Corruption Hinder Foreign Direct Investment and Growth in Asia and Beyond? The Grabbing Versus the Helping Hand Revisited” by Ahmed M Khalid (Professor of Economics, Universiti Brunei Darussalam);
Chapter 3 – “The Effect of Corruption on Foreign Direct Investment at the Regional Level: A Positive or Negative Relationship?” By Bruno Jetin, Jamel Saadaoui (Senior Lecturer of Economics, The University of Strasbourg), Haingo Ratiarison (The University of Strasbourg);
Chapter 4 – “Anti-Corruption Laws and Investment Treaty Arbitration: An Asian Perspective” by Anselmo Reyes (International Judge, Singapore International Commercial Court) and Till Haechler (Associate, Lenz & Staehelin);
Chapter 5 – “Multi-Tiered International Anti-Corruption Cooperation in Asia: A Review of Treaties and Prospects” by Yueming Yan (Assistant Professor, Chinese University of Hong Kong) and Tianyu Liu (ADR Case Manager, Hong Kong International Arbitration Centre);
Chapter 6 – “Corruption in International Investment Arbitration” by Michael Hwang SC (Arbitrator, Michael Hwang Chambers) and Aloysius Chang (Michael Hwang Chambers);
Chapter 7 – “Rebalancing Asymmetries Between Host States and Investors in Asian Investor–State Dispute Settlement: An Exception for Systemic Corruption” by Martin Jarrett (Senior Research Fellow, Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law);
Chapter 8 – “Foreign Investment, Investment Treaties and Corruption in China and Hong Kong” by Vivienne Bath (Professor of Chinese Law, Sydney Law School) and Tianqi Gu (Sydney Law School);
Chapter 9 – “Corruption and Investment Treaty Arbitration in India” by Prabhash Ranjan (Professor and Vice Dean, Jindal Global Law School);
Chapter 10 – “Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Disputes: Indonesia” by Simon Butt (Professor of Indonesian Law, Sydney Law School), Antony Crockett (Partner, Herbert Smith Freehills Hong Kong) and Tim Lindsey (Malcolm Smith Chair of Asian Law and Redmond Barry Distinguished Professor, Melbourne Law School);
Chapter 11 – “Foreign Investment, Treaties, Arbitration and Corruption: Comparing Japan” by Luke Nottage and Nobumichi Teramura;
Chapter 12 – “Corruption and Investment Arbitration in the Lao People’s Democratic Republic: Corruptio Incognito” by Romesh Weeramantry (Special Counsel, Clifford Chance Perth) and Uma Sharma (Associate, Jones Day Singapore);
Chapter 13 – “Corruption and Illegality in Asian Investment Arbitration: The Philippines” by Thomas Elliot A Mondez (Faculty Member, De La Salle University, Philippines) and Jocelyn P Cruz (Associate Professor, De La Salle University, Philippines);
Chapter 14 – “Investment Arbitration, Corruption and Illegality: South Korea” by Joongi Kim (Professor Yonsei Law School);
Chapter 15 – “Foreign Investment, Corruption, Investment Treaties and Arbitration in Thailand” by Sirilaksana Khoman (Professor, Thammasat University, Thailand), Luke Nottage and Sakda Thanitcul (Professor, Chulalongkorn University); and
Chapter 16 – “Towards a More Harmonised Asian Approach to Corruption and Illegality in Investment Arbitration” by Nobumichi Teramura, Luke Nottage and Bruno Jetin.