Views
Alexander Vik v Deutsche Bank AG: the powers of the English court outside of the jurisdiction in contempt of court proceedings
By Diana Kostina
The recent Court of Appeal judgment in Alexander Vik and Deutsche Bank AG [2018] EWCA Civ 2011confirmedthat contempt of court applications for alleged non-compliance with a court order can be served on a party outside the jurisdiction of England and Wales. The Court of Appeal’s judgment also contains a useful reminder of the key principles governing the powers of English courts to serve defendants outside of the jurisdiction.
Background
This Court of Appeal’s judgment is the latest development in the litigation saga which has been ongoing between Deutsche Bank (‘the Bank’) and Alexander Vik, the Norwegian billionaire residing in Monaco (‘Mr Vik’) and his company, Sebastian Holdings Inc (‘the Company’). The Bank has been trying to enforce a 2013 judgment debt, which is now estimated to be around US $ 320 million.
Within the enforcement proceedings, the English court made an order under CPR 71.2 requiring Mr Vik to appear before the court to provide relevant information and documents regarding the assets of the Company. This information would have assisted the Bank in its efforts to enforce the judgment against him. Although Mr Vik did appear in court, the Bank argued that he had deliberately failed to disclose important documents and lied under oath. Accordingly, the Bank argued that Mr Vik should be held in contempt of court by way of a committal order.
To obtain a committal order, the Bank could have applied under either CPR 71.8 or CPR 81.4. The difference is that the former rule provides for a simple and streamlined committal procedure, while the latter is more rigorous, slow, and — as accepted by courts — possibly extra-territorial. The Bank filed an application under CPR 81.4, and the court granted a suspended committal order. The Bank then sought to serve the order on Mr Vik in Monaco.
High Court decision
The Judge at first instance, Teare J, carefully considered the multi-faceted arguments. Teare J concluded that permission should not be required to serve the committal order on Mr Vik, because the debtor was already subject to the incidental jurisdiction of the English courts to enforce CPR 71 order. A similar conclusion could be reached by relying on Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation (which provides that in proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments, the courts of the member state shall have exclusive jurisdiction regardless of the domicile of the parties). However, if the Bank had needed permission to serve the committal order outside the jurisdiction, then his Lordship concluded that the Bank could not rely on the gateway set out in PD 6B 3.1(10) (which provides that a claim may be served out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where such claim is made to enforce a judgment or an arbitral award). Both parties appealed against this judgment.
Court of Appeal decision
The Court of Appeal, largely agreeing with Teare J, made five principal findings.
(1) The court found it ironic that Mr Vik argued that CPR 71.8 (specific ground), rather CPR 81.4 (generic ground) applied to the alleged breach of CPR 71.2, since CPR 81.4 offered greater protections to the alleged contemnor. The likely reason for this “counter-intuitive” step was that the latter provision was extra-territorial. The Court of Appeal confirmed that CPR 71.8 is not a mandatory lex specialis for committal applications relating to a breach of CPR 71.2, and that the Bank was perfectly entitled to rely on CPR 81.4.
(2) The Court of Appeal agreed with the findings of Teare J that the court’s power to commit contemnors to prison is derived from its inherent jurisdiction. The CPR rules only provide the technical steps to be followed when this common law power is to be exercised. It followed that it did not make much difference which rule to apply – either the broader CPR 81.4 or the narrower CPR 71.8. Thus, if the Bank had made the committal application under CPR 71.8, the application would have had an extra-territorial effect.
(3) Mr Vik sought to challenge Teare J’s finding that he should be deemed to be within the jurisdiction in the contempt of court proceedings, because they are incidental to the CPR 71.2 order in which he participated. Instead, he argued, such proceedings were distinguishably “new”, and would require permission to serve outside the jurisdiction. The Court of Appeal disagreed and confirmed that the committal order was incidental as the means to enforce the CPR 71.2 order. Therefore, in the light of the strong public interest in the enforcement of English court orders, it was not necessary for the Bank to obtain permission to serve the committal order outside the jurisdiction.
(4) Teare J observed that Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation meant that that permission to serve Mr Vik outside of the jurisdiction was not required. Article 24(5) confers exclusive jurisdiction on the courts of the Member State in which the judgment was made and to be enforced by, regardless of the domicile of the parties. The Court of Appeal (in obiter) was generally supportive of this approach, opining that the committal application in the case at hand was likely to fall within Article 24(5) of the Brussels Recast Regulation. However, the careful and subtle wording of Article 24(5) implied that this conclusion might be subject to further consideration on a future occasion.
(5) Under CPR 6.36, a claimant may serve a claim form out of the jurisdiction with the permission of the court where the claim comes within one of the “gateways” contained in PD 6B. The relevant gateway in the Mr Vik’s case was to be found at PD 6B, para 3.1(1), as a claim made to enforce a judgment. Teare J was of the view that the Bank could not rely on this gateway to enforce the committal order. The Court of Appeal was reluctant to give a definitive answer on this point, even though “there may well be considerable force” in the Teare J’s approach. Thus, it remains unclear whether the CPR rules regulating service outside the jurisdiction would apply to the CPR 71 order and the committal order.
The importance of the judgment
This Court of Appeal’s judgment serves as an important reminder for parties who are involved in the enforcement of English judgment debts. Rather than giving a short answer to a narrow point of civil procedure, the judgment contains an extensive analysis of English and EU law. The judgment highlights the tension between important Rule of Law issues such as “enforcing court orders on the one hand” and “keeping within the jurisdictional limits of the Court, especially as individual liberty is at risk, on the other” (Court of Appeal judgment, at para. 1).
The judgment demonstrates the broad extra-territorial reach of the English courts. It also confirms the English court’s creditor-friendly reputation. The findings on the issues of principle may be relevant to applications to serve orders on defendants out of the jurisdiction in other proceedings, for instance worldwide freezing orders or cross-border anti-suit injunctions.
Nevertheless, the judgment demonstrates the need for clear guidance on the jurisdictional getaways to serve out of the jurisdiction for contempt of court. In giving judgment, Lord Justice Gross carefully suggested that the Rules Committee should consider implementing a specific rule permitting such service on an officer of a company, where the fact that he is out of the jurisdiction is no bar to the making of a committal application.
Another issue that seems subject to further clarification is whether a committal order or a provisional CPR 71 order are covered by the Brussels Recast Regulation. A definitive answer to this question becomes particularly intriguing in the light of Brexit.
Legal parentage of children born of a surrogate mother: what about the intended mother?
On October 5th, The Cour de Cassation, the highest court in France for private law matters, requested an advisory opinion of the ECtHR (Ass. plén. 5 octobre 2018, n°10-19053). It is the first time a Contracting State applies to the ECtHR for an advisory opinion on the basis of Protocol n° 16 which entered into force on August 1st, 2018. The request relates to the legal parentage of children born to a surrogate mother. More specifically, it concerns the intended mother’s legal relationship with the child.
The Mennesson case is again under the spotlight, after 18 years of judicial proceedings. Previous developments will be briefly recalled, before the Advisory opinion request is summarized.
Previous developments in the Mennesson case:
A French couple, Mr and Mrs Mennesson, went to California to conclude a surrogacy agreement. Thanks to the surrogate mother, twins were born en 2000. They were conceived with genetic material from the intended father and eggs from a friend of the couple. The Californian Supreme Court issued a judgment referring to the couple as genetic father and legal mother of the children. Birth certificates were issued and the couple asked for their transcription into the French civil status register.
French authorities refused the transcription, arguing that it would be contrary to public policy. Surrogate motherhood, in particular, is forbidden under article 16-7 of the Civil Code. Such agreements are then considered void and resulting foreign birth certificates establishing parentage are considered contrary to public policy (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 6 avril 2011, n°10-19053).
As a last resort, The Mennesson family brought a claim before the ECtHR. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate violated their right to respect for private and family life. While the Court considered that the parent’s right to family life was not infringed, it ruled that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates violated the children’s right to identity and was not in their best interest. As a consequence, it ruled that the refusal to establish the legal parentage of the indented parents was a violation of the children’s right to private life, particularly so if the indented father was also the biological father.
After the ECtHR ruling: the French landscape
After the ECtHR ruling, the Cour de Cassation softened its position. In 2015, sitting in Assemblée plénière, it ruled that the mere fact that a child was born of a surrogate mother did not in itself justify the refusal to transcribe the birth certificate, as long as that certificate was neither unlawful nor forged, nor did it contain facts that did not correspond to reality (Ass. plén., 3 juillet 2015, n° 14-21323 et n°15-50002).
As a consequence, the Court only accepted the transcription of foreign birth certificate when the intended father is also the biological father. When it came to the other intended parent, the Cour de Cassation refused the transcription. By so doing, the Cour de Cassation reiterates its commitment to the Mater semper certa principle as the sole basis of its conception of motherhood. Meanwhile, in 2017, the Cour de Cassation signalled that the genetic father’s spouse could adopt the child if all the requirements for adoption were met and if it was in the best interest of the child (Cass. Civ. 1ère, 5 juillet, 2017, n°15-28597, n°16-16455, and n°16-16901 ; 16-50025 and the press release)
However, the Mennessons’ fight was not over yet. Although according to the latest decisions, it looked like both Mr and Mrs Mennesson could finally establish their kinship with the twins, they still had to overcome procedural obstacles. As the Cour de Cassation had refused the transcription in its 2011 judgment which had become final, the parents were barred from applying for it again. As pointed out by the ECtHR in the Foulon and Bouvet v. France case (21/07/2016, Application n°9063/14 and 10410/14), French authorities failed to provide an avenue for the parties involved in cases adjudicated before 2014 to have them re-examined in the light of the subsequent changes in the law. Thus, France was again held to be in violation of its obligations under the Convention. (See also Laborie v. France, 19/01/2017, Application n°44024/13).
In 2016, the legislator adopted a new procedure to allow for the review of final decisions in matter of personal status in cases where the ECtHR had ruled that a violation of the ECHR had occurred. The review is possible when it appears that the consequences of the violation of the Convention are serious and that the just satisfaction awarded on the basis of article 41 ECHR cannot put an end to the violation (see articles L.452-1 to L.452-6 of the Code de l’organisation judiciaire).
Current situation:
Taking advantage of this new procedure, the Mennesson family asked for a review of their situation. They claimed that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates was contrary to the best interest of the children. They also argued that, as it obstructed the establishment of parentage, it amounted to a violation of article 8 ECHR. Moreover, they argued that the refusal to transcribe the birth certificates on the ground that the children were born of a surrogate mother was discriminatory and infringed article 14 ECHR.
Sitting again in Assemblée plénière, the Cour de Cassation summarized its previous case law. It concluded that while the issue of the transcription of the father biological parentage is settled, the answer is less certain regarding the intended mother. The Court wondered if its refusal to transcribe the birth certificate as far as the intended mother is concerned is consistent with the State margin of appreciation under article 8. It also wondered whether it should distinguish between cases where the child is conceived with the genetic material of the intended mother and cases where it is not. Finally, it raised the issue of whether its approach of allowing the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child was compatible with article 8 ECHR.
After pointing out the uncertain compatibility of its reasoning with ECtHR case law, the Court chose to request an advisory opinion from the ECtHR. Protocol 16 allows Contracting States to apply to the ECtHR for its advisory opinion “on questions of principles relating to the interpretation or application of the rights and freedom defined in the Convention or the protocols thereto” (Protocol 16 art.1).
Thus, the Cour de Cassation asked the ECtHR the two following questions:
- By refusing to transcribe into civil status registers the birth certificate of a child born abroad from a surrogate mother inasmuch as it refers to the intended mother as the “legal mother”, while the transcription has been accepted when the intended father is the biological father of the child, does a State Party exceed its margin of appreciation under article 8 ECHR? In this respect, is it necessary to distinguish between whether or not the child is conceived with the gametes of the intended mother?
- If the answer to one of the two preceding questions is in the affirmative, does the possibility for the intended mother to adopt her husband’s biological child, which constitutes a mean of establishing parentage open to her, comply with the requirements of article 8 of the Convention?
As the Cour de Cassation indicates on the press release accompanying the request of an advisory opinion, it seized the opportunity of initiating a judicial dialogue between national jurisdictions and the ECtHR. However, it looks more like a sign of caution on the part of the French court, in a particularly sensitive case. Depending on the answer it receives, the Cour de Cassation will adapt its case law.
Although Protocol n°16 does not refer to a specific deadline, the Explanatory report indicates that it would be appropriate for the ECtHR to give high priority to advisory opinion proceedings.
Thus, it looks like the Mennesson saga will be continued soon…
A New Zealand perspective on Israeli judgment against New Zealand-based activists under Israel’s Anti-Boycott Law
Last year the New Zealand singer Lorde cancelled a concert in Tel Aviv following an open letter by two New Zealand-based activists urging her to take a stand on Israel’s illegal occupation of Palestine. A few weeks later, the two activists found themselves the subject of a civil claim brought in the Israeli court. The claim was brought by the Israeli law group Shurat HaDin, on behalf of three minors who had bought tickets to the concert, pursuant to Israel’s so-called Anti-Boycott Law (the Law for the Prevention of Damage to the State of Israel through Boycott). The Israeli court has now released a judgment upholding the claim and ordering the activists to pay NZ$18,000 in damages (plus costs).
Readers who are interested in a New Zealand perspective on the decision may wish to visit The Conflict of Laws in New Zealand, where I offer some preliminary thoughts on the conflict of laws issues raised by the judgment. In particular, the post addresses – from a perspective of the New Zealand conflict of laws – the concern that the judgment represents some kind of jurisdictional overreach, before discussing the enforceability of the judgment in New Zealand (and elsewhere).
News
The boundaries of the insolvency exclusion under the EAPO Regulation: A recent judgment from Slovakia
Carlos Santaló Goris, Researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg, offers an analysis of some aspects of a judgment concerning the EAPO Regulation rendered by the District Court of Žilina (Okresný súd Žilina), Slovakia.
Can insolvency practitioners apply for a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”) against insolvent debtors to freeze their bank accounts? The District Court of Žilina (Okresný súd Žilina) in Slovakia confronted this issue in an EAPO application it received on January 2022. The EAPO Regulation expressly excludes the use of the EAPO Regulation for “claims against a debtor in relation to whom bankruptcy proceedings, proceedings for the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions, or analogous proceedings have been opened” (Art. 2(2)(c) EAPO Regulation). This is the same exclusion that can be found in Art. 1(2)(b) the Brussels I bis Regulation. Recital 8 of the EAPO Regulation reiterates that the Regulation “should not apply to claims against a debtor in insolvency proceedings” remarking that the EAPO “can be issued against the debtor once insolvency proceedings as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (now Regulation No 2015/848)”. At the same time, Recital 18 states that that exclusion should not prevent the use of an EAPO “to secure the recovery of detrimental payments made by such a debtor to third parties”.
In the instant Slovakian case, an insolvency practitioner requested an EAPO application against an insolvent debtor. The objective was to integrate the funds recovered through the EAPO into the insolvency estate. The insolvency practitioner applied for the EAPO once no assets were found in Slovakia. The EAPO application included a request to investigate the debtors’ bank accounts in Austria. One of the creditors suspected the debtor “had misappropriated funds and stashed them in offshore accounts”. The District Court of Žilina (Okresný súd Žilina) considered that, since the EAPO was requested against the debtor, such a request fell within the insolvency exclusion. Thus, the EAPO Regulation was not applicable. This court embraced the most literal sense of the insolvency exclusion. However, from a teleological perspective, the insolvency exclusion aims at preventing individual creditors from using the EAPO to undermine an insolvency estate during bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, the EAPO was used in favour of the insolvency estate. Had the EAPO been successful, it would have served to increase it.
The present case serves as an example to show that the boundaries of the EAPO insolvency exclusion are blurred. Perhaps, in the future, a similar case might reach the CJEU and help cast further light on the EAPO’s insolvency exclusion.
Date change: AMEDIP’s annual seminar to take place from 23 to 25 November 2022
The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) will be holding its annual XLV Seminar entitled “Private International Law in the conformation of a new international order” (el derecho internacional privado en la conformación de un nuevo orden internacional) from 23 to 25 November 2022.
This will be a hybrid event. The seminar will take place at the Escuela Libre de Derecho (Mexico City). The registration fee is $300 MXN for students and $500 MXN for general public.
This event will be streamed live on AMEDIP’s social media channels and Zoom (see below for details). Participation is free of charge but there is a fee of $500 MXN if a certificate of attendance is requested (80% of participation in the event is required).
Zoom details:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5554563931?pwd=WE9uemJpeWpXQUo1elRPVjRMV0tvdz09
ID de reunión: 555 456 3931
Código de acceso: 00000
For more information, click here.
The program is available below.
Programa.
MIÉRCOLES 23 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022.
| 10:10 a 10:20 HRS. | INAUGURACIÓN.
Mario Héctor Blancas Vargas Vocal de la Junta Directiva Escuela Libre de derecho Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Academia Mexicana de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado (AMEDIP).
|
| 10:20 a 11:00 HRS | CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL |
|
Leonel Pereznieto Castro “El Pluralismo de Leyes frente al Derecho Internacional Privado”
|
|
receso 11:00 – 11:10 hrs.
|
|
|
11:10 a 12:10 HRS. |
MESA I
“COOPERACIÓN PROCESAL INTERNACIONAL Y EL PROYECTO DE CÓDIGO NACIONAL DE PROCEDIMIENTOS CIVILES Y FAMILIARES”
|
|
Moderadora: Ligia C. González Lozano Miembro de Número |
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. José Roberto de Jesús Treviño Sosa.
(México) |
“La Cooperación Procesal Internacional en el marco del Proyecto de código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares”.
|
| 2. Carlos e. Odriozola Mariscal.
(México) |
“La regulación de la cooperación procesal internacional en el próximo Código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares: Reflexiones sobre su eficacia”.
|
| 3. Jorge Alberto Silva Silva.
(México) |
“Cláusula de reciprocidad en el Proyecto de Código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares”.
|
| 4. Nuria Marchal Escalona.
(España) |
“Hacia la digitalización en el ámbito de la cooperación transfronteriza en la justicia civil”. |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins). |
|
|
receso 12:30 – 12:50 hrs.
|
|
|
12:50 a 13:40 HRS. |
Mesa II
“CONTRATACIÓN INTERNACIONAL”
|
|
Moderadora: María Mercedes Albornoz. Miembro de Número
|
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. James A. Graham/Christian López Martínez.
(México) |
“La Ley Aplicable a la Autonomía de la Voluntad en materia contractual”.
|
| 2. Diego Robles Farías.
(México) |
“El desarrollo de la Cláusula ‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’ en el Derecho Comparado y en los instrumentos de Derecho Uniforme que regulan los contratos internacionales.”. |
| 3. Alfonso Ortega Giménez.
(España) |
“Derecho Internacional Privado de la unión Europea y ‘Smart Contracts’ (contratos Inteligentes): Problemas de Competencia Judicial Internacional y de Determinación de la Ley Aplicable”.
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 14:00 – 16:00 hrs.
|
|
|
16:00 – 17:00 HRS. |
“PRESENTACIÓN DEL LIBRO: La Gestación por Sustitución en el Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado”
|
|
Moderadora: Nuria González Martín. Secretaria General de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| Participan: | Adriana Dreyzin de Klor (Argentina) |
| Rosa Elvira Vargas Baca (México) | |
| María Mercedes Albornoz (México) | |
| Nuria González Martín (México) | |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
receso 17:20 – 17:30 hrs.
|
| 17:30 a 18:00 HRS. | Entrega de Constancias a Miembros Eméritos y de Número
|
|
Moderador: Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
JUEVES 24 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022.
| 10:00 a 10:40 HRS. | CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL
Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo Consultor Jurídico Adjunto “A” Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores
|
|
Moderadora: Rosa Elvira Vargas Baca. Vicepresidente de la Junta de Gobierno |
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 11:00 – 11:10 hrs.
|
|
|
11:10 a 12:10 HRS. |
MESA III “DERECHO INTERNACIONAL DE LA FAMILIA”
|
|
Moderadora: Martha Álvarez Rendón. Vínculo Institucional con S.R.E. |
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. María Mayela Celis Aguilar.
(Países bajos)
|
“La implementación del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional de Menores en los regímenes nacionales: el caso de América Latina y México”.
|
| 2. Manuel Hernández Rodríguez.
(México) |
“Los retos en México de la Adopción Internacional”.
|
| 3. María Virginia Aguilar.
(México) |
“La Convención sobre los Derecho de las Personas con Discapacidad, un buen documento con ausencia de efectividad, errores y posibilidades”.
|
| 4. Jorge Orozco González.
(México) |
“Consideraciones en torno a la compensación conyugal por causa de muerte. Análisis de la sentencia de amparo directo en revisión 3908/2021”.
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 12:30 – 12:45 hrs.
|
|
| 12:45 – 13:40 HRS
|
MESA IV
“NACIONALIDAD/PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL EN EL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO”
|
|
Moderadora: Yaritza Pérez Pacheco Coordinadora Editorial
|
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. Pedro Carrillo Toral
(México)
|
“La doble Nacionalidad en México: Privilegio o Restricción”
|
| 2. Lerdys Saray Heredia Sánchez
(España)
|
“La inadecuada regulación de los supuestos de plurinacionalidad en Derecho Internacional Privado Español”
|
| 3. Ana Elizabeth Villalta Vizcarra
(El Salvador)
|
“La protección de los Bienes Culturales en el Derecho Internacional Privado” |
| 4. Rosa Elvira Vargas Baca
(México)
|
“La protección de bienes culturales de conformidad con el Convenio de UNIDROIT de 1995”.
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
receso 14:00 – 16:00 hrs.
|
| 16:00 a 17:00 HRS. | MESA V
“Responsabilidad Civil Extracontractual/ Temas Selectos de Derecho Internacional Privado-I”
|
|
Moderadora: Anahí Rodríguez Marcial. Coordinadora de Seminario
|
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. Francisco de Jesús Goytortúa Chambón.
(México)
|
“Criterios del Derecho Aplicable en la Responsabilidad Extracontractual” |
| 2. Mario de la Madrid Andrade.
(México) |
“La responsabilidad de la empresa en los Principios de Derecho Europeo sobre la Responsabilidad Civil Extracontractual”
|
| 3. Carlos Gabuardi.
(México) |
“Nuevos desarrollos evolutivos del Derecho Internacional Privado”. |
|
4. Adriana Patricia Guzmán Calderón/ Sara Ximena Pinzón Restrepo. (Colombia) |
“¿Cuáles son los desafíos de la normatividad de la propiedad intelectual frente al surgimiento de los NFTs? Análisis de los NFTs en el Marco de la Propiedad Intelectual en Colombia”. |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 17:20 – 17:30 hrs.
|
|
|
17:30 a 18:00 HRS. |
Entrega de Constancias a Miembros Supernumerarios
|
|
Moderador: Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
VIERNES 25 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022.
|
10:00 a 10:30 HRS. |
CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL Roberto Ruíz Díaz Labrano “Las fuentes del Derecho Internacional Privado en la Actualidad”. (Paraguay)
|
|
Moderadora: Wendolyne Nava gonzález Coordinadora Editorial |
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 10:50 – 11:00 hrs.
|
|
|
11:00 – 12:00HRS. |
Mesa VI “TECNOLOGÍA Y DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO/TEMAS SELECTOS DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO-II” |
|
Moderadora: Martha Karina Tejada Vásquez. Prosecretaria de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| Ponente | Tema |
| 1. Roberto Antonio Falcón Espinosa.
(México) |
“Los datos personales biométricos y el Derecho Internacional Privado”
|
| 2. Nayiber Febles Pozo
(España) |
“Desafío del Derecho Internacional Privado ante las relaciones en el ciberespacio: Relación de continuidad o cambio de paradigma”.
|
| 3. Francisco José Contreras Vaca.
(México) |
“Conflicto de Leyes en materia del Trabajo”.
|
| 4. Wendolyne Nava González.
(México) |
“Justicia Descentralizada: Obstáculos y Consideraciones Jurídicas”
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 12:20 – 12:40
|
|
|
12:40 – 13:25 HRS. |
Mesa VII
“TEMAS SELECTOS DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO-III”
|
|
Moderadora: Mónica María Antonieta Velarde Méndez. Consejera de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| 1. Juan Manuel Saldaña Pérez.
(México) |
“Cooperación Procesal Internacional en Materia Aduanera”.
|
| 2. Máximo Romero Jiménez
(México) |
“Implementación del Anexo 31-A del T-MEC”.
|
| 3. Vladia Ruxandra Mucenic.
(Rumania) |
“Participación de Accionistas Extranjeros en Asambleas Virtuales de Sociedades Mexicanas”. |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (10 mins).
|
|
|
receso 13:35 – 13:45
|
|
|
13:45 a 14:00 HRS. |
Entrega de Constancias a Miembros Asociados
|
|
Moderador: Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| 14:00 HRS. | CLAUSURA.
*Por definir Escuela Libre de Derecho (ELD) Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Academia Mexicana de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado (AMEDIP).
|
9th Journal of Private International Law Conference: Deadline for submission of abstracts
The 9th Journal of Private International Law conference will be hosted by the Yong Pung School of Law, Singapore Management University on 3rd to 5th August 2023. A reminder that the deadline to submit abstracts is Friday 16 December 2022. The Call for Papers can be found here and the conference website is available here. The conference organisers look forward to welcoming you to Singapore next year.