Views
Mass Litigation in Times of Corona and Developments in the Netherlands
By Jos Hoevenaars and Xandra Kramer, Erasmus University Rotterdam (postdoc and PI ERC consolidator project Building EU Civil Justice, Erasmus University Rotterdam)
Introduction
As is illustrated in a series of blog posts on this website, the current pandemic also has an impact on the administration of justice and on international litigation. As regards collective redress, Matthias Weller reported on the mass litigation against the Austrian Federal State of Tyrol and local tourist businesses. The Austrian Consumer Protection Association (Österreichischer Verbraucherschutzverein, VSV) has been inviting tourists that have been in the ski areas in Tyrol – which turned into Corona infection hotspots – in the period from 5 March 2020 and shortly afterwards discovered that they were infected with the virus, to enrol for claims for damages against the Tyrolean authorities and the Republic of Austria. Hundreds of coronavirus cases in Iceland, the UK, Germany, Ireland, Norway, Denmark and the Netherlands can be traced back to that area. Currently over 4,000 (including nearly 400 Dutch nationals) have joined the action by the VSV.
It may be expected that other cases will follow as the global impact of the pandemic is overwhelming, both in terms of health and economic effects, and it seems that early warnings have been ignored. Like for instance the Volkswagen emission case, these events with global impact are those in which collective redress mechanisms – apart perhaps from piggybacking in pending criminal procedures – are the most suitable vehicles. This blog will address mass litigation resulting from the corona crisis and use the opportunity to bring a new Dutch act on collective action to the attention.
Late Response
After the WHO declared the coronavirus a global emergency on 30 January 2020, and after the virus made landfall in Europe in February, the beginning of March still saw plenty of skiing and partying in Tyrolean winter sports resorts such as Ischgl and Sankt Anton. It later turned out that during that period thousands of winter sports tourists were infected with the corona virus and who, upon returning to their home countries, spread the virus throughout Europe. A group of Icelandic vacationers had already returned sick from Ischgl at the end of February. In response, Iceland designated Tyrol as a high-risk zone. They warned other countries in Europe, but these did not follow the Icelandic example.
The first alarm bells in Tyrol itself rang on 7 March 2020 when it became known that a bartender from one of the busiest and best-known après-ski bars in Ischgl, Café Kitzloch, had tested positive for the corona virus. A day later it appeared that the entire waiting staff tested positive. Still, the bar remained open until 9 March. Other bars, shops, restaurants were open even longer, and it took almost a week for the area to go into complete lockdown. The last ski lifts stopped operating on 15 March.
The public prosecutor in Tirol is currently investigating whether criminal offenses were committed in the process. The investigation started as early as 24 March, at least in part after German channel ZDF indicated that at the end of February there was already a corona infection in an après ski bar in Ischgl and that it had not been made public. Public officials in Tyrol might thus face criminal proceedings, and civil claims are to be expected later in the year. For instance Dutch media have reported that Dutch victims feel misinformed by the Austrian authorities and nearly 400 Dutch victims have joined the claim.
Corona-related Damage as Driver for International (Mass) Litigation
It is unlikely that COVID-19 related mass claims will be confined to the case of Tirol, and to damages resulting directly from infections and possible negligent endangerment of people by communicable diseases. The fall-out from the wide-spread lockdown measures and resulting economic impact on businesses and consumers alike, has been called a ‘recipe for litigation’ for representative organizations and litigation firms.
With the coronavirus upending markets, disrupting supply chains and governments enacting forced quarantines, the fallout from lockdowns as well as the general global economic impact will provide fertile grounds for lawsuits in a host of areas. Some companies are already facing legal action. For instance, GOJO, the producer of Purell hand sanitizer, is being accused of ‘misleading claims’ that it can prevent ‘99.9 percent of illness-causing germs’ (see for instance this NBC coverage), and law suits have been brought for price gouging by Amazon for toilet paper and hand sanitizer, and for sales of face masks through eBay (see here for a brief overview of some of the cases).
Further down the line, manufacturers may sue over missed deadlines, while suppliers could sue energy companies for halting shipments as transportation demand dwindles. Insurers are likely to find themselves in court, with businesses filing insurance claims over the coronavirus fallout. And in terms of labor law, companies may be held liable in cases where work practices have led to employees being exposed and infected with the virus. For instance, this March, in the US the nurses’ union filed a law suit against the New York State Department of Health and a few hospitals for unsafe working conditions (see for instance this CNN coverage). Already at the end of January, the pilots’ union at American Airlines Group Inc. took legal action to prevent the company from serving China, thereby putting its employees at risk (see for instance this CBS coverage).
Private care facilities too, like nursing homes that have seen disproportionate death rates in many countries, could face claims that they didn’t move quickly enough to protect residents, or didn’t have proper contingency plans in place once it became clear that the virus posed a risk especially to their clientele. Similarly, states have a responsibility for their incarcerated population and may face liability claims in case of outbreak in prison facilities. Airlines that have spent years in EU courts fighting and shaping compensation rules for passengers may well again find themselves before the Court of Justice pleading extraordinary circumstances beyond their control to avoid new payouts to consumers. And finally, governments’ careful weighing of public health against individual rights could result in mass claims in both directions.
Developments in the Netherlands: the WAMCA
Dutch collective redress mechanisms have been a subject of discussion in the EU and beyond. While we are not aware of cases related to COVID-19 having been brought or being prepared in the Netherlands so far, the latest addition to the Dutch collective redress mechanisms could prove to be useful. In the Netherlands, a procedure for a collective injunctive action has been in place since 1994. This was followed by a collective settlement scheme in 2005 (the Collective Settlement Act, WCAM) which facilitates collective voluntary settlement of mass damage. Especially the Shell and Converium securities cases have attracted widespread international attention. The decision by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal – having exclusive competence in these cases – has been criticized for casting the international jurisdiction net too wide in the latter case in particular (see for a discussion of private international law aspects Kramer 2014 and Van Lith 2010). These, and a number of other Dutch collective redress cases, have spurred discussions about the alleged risk of the Netherlands opening itself up to frivolous litigation by commercially motivated action groups, a problem that has often been associated with the US system. In an earlier blog post our research group has called for a nuanced approach as there are no indications that the Dutch system triggers abuse.
At the time of enacting the much discussed WCAM, the Dutch legislature deliberately chose not to include the possibility of bringing a collective action for the compensation of damages in an attempt to avoid some of the problematic issues associated with US class actions. However, last year, after many years of deliberating (see our post of 2014 on this blog on the draft bill) the new act enabling a collective compensatory action was adopted. The Collective Redress of Mass Damages Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA) entered into force on 1 January 2020. It applies to events that occurred on or after 15 November 2016.
As announced in an earlier post on this blog, this new act aims to make collective settlements more attractive for all parties involved by securing the quality of representative organizations, coordinating collective (damages) procedures and offering more finality. At the same time it aims to strike the balance between better access to justice in a mass damages claim and the protection of justified interests of persons held liable. The WAMCA can be seen as the third step in the design of collective redress mechanisms in the Dutch justice system, building on the 1994 collective injunctive action and the 2005 WCAM settlement mechanism. An informal and unauthorised English version of the new act is available here.
The new general rule laid down in Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code, like its predecessor, retains the possibility of collective action by a representative association or foundation, provided that it represents these interests under the articles of association and that these interests are adequately safeguarded by the governance structure of the association or foundation. However, stricter requirements for legal standing have been added, effectively raising the threshold for access to justice. This is to avoid special purpose vehicles (SPVs) bringing claims with the (sole) purpose of commercial gain. In addition to a declaratory judgment a collective action can now also cover compensation as a result of the new act. In case more representatives are involved the court will appoint the most suitable representative organisation as exclusive representative. As under the old collective action regime, this has to be a non-profit organisation. The Claim Code of 2011 and the new version of 2019 are important regulatory instruments for representative organisations. Should parties come to a settlement, the WCAM procedural regime will apply, meaning that the settlement agreement will be declared binding by the Court of Appeal in Amsterdam if it fulfils the procedural and substantive requirements. This is binding for all parties that didn’t make use of the opt-out possibility.
Limited territorial scope and the position of foreign parties
To meet some of the criticism that has been voiced in relation to the extensive extraterritorial reach of the WCAM, the new act limits the territorial scope of collective actions.
First, the new Article 3:305a of the Dutch Civil Code contains a scope rule stating that a legal representative only has legal standing if the claim has a sufficiently close relationship with the Netherlands. A sufficiently close relationship with Dutch jurisdiction exists if:
(1) the legal person can make a sufficiently plausible claim that the majority of persons whose interests the legal action aims to protect have their habitual residence in the Netherlands; or
(2) the party against whom the legal action is directed is domiciled in the Netherlands, and additional circumstances suggest that there is a sufficiently close relationship with Dutch jurisdiction; or
(3) the event or events to which the legal action relates took place in the Netherlands
Though this is not an international jurisdiction rule – that would be at odds with the Brussels I-bis Regulation – this scope rule prevents that the Dutch court can decide cases such as the Converium case in which the settling company was situated abroad and only 3% of the interested parties were domiciled in the Netherlands. In fact, it is a severe restriction of the international reach of the Dutch collective action regime.
Second, another often debated issue is the opt-out system of the WCAM. While this makes coming to a settlement obviously much more attractive for companies and increases the efficiency of collective actions, an exception is made for collective actions involving foreign parties. Dutch parties can make use of an opt-out within a period to be set by the court of one month at least. However, for foreign parties the new act provides for a general opt-in regime for foreign parties. Article 1018 f (5) of the Dutch Code of Civil Procedure provides that persons who are not domiciled or resident in the Netherlands are only bound if they have informed the court registry within the period set by the court that they agree to having their interests represented in the collective action. There is a little leeway to deviate from this rule. The court may, at the request of a party, decide that non-Dutch domiciles and residents belonging to the precisely specified group of persons whose interests are being represented in the collective action, are subject to the opt-out rule.
The introduction by the WAMCA of a compensatory collective action complementing the injunctive collective action and providing a stick to the carrot of the WCAM settlement offers new opportunities, while increased standards of legal standing provide the necessary safeguards. However, the limitation of the scope of the new regime to cases that are closely related to the Netherlands – on top of the international jurisdiction rules – and deviating from the effective opt-out rule for foreign parties restrict the scope of Dutch collective actions. Time will tell what role the new Dutch collective action regime will play in major international cases, and whether it will be of use to provide redress for some of the culpable damage caused by the present pandemic.
Israeli Requirement of Good Faith Conduct in Enforcement of Foreign Judgments
Written by Haggai Carmon, Carmon & Carmon, an international law firm with offices in Tel Aviv and a front office in New York.
The requirement of parties’ good faith conduct is fundamental in Israeli law and jurisprudence. However, only recently the Supreme Court has applied that doctrine to enforcement of foreign judgments as thus far, only lower courts have followed that doctrine.
In Civil Appeal X [Name removed upon request of Claimant, General Editors of CoL, 26 October 2022] v. Bankruptcy Office Geneva, the Supreme Court (per Esther Hayut, Chief Justice,) on August 27, 2019, unanimously denied an appeal over a District Court’s earlier finding that procedural bad faith is independently sufficient grounds to rule against a party whose conduct during proceedings to enforce a Swiss judgment, was so egregious that it warranted such extreme measure.
“In the course of the proceedings in the case, the appellant demonstrated contempt for the court’s proceedings, the counterclaimant’s rights and the duties imposed on him under the Rules of Civil Procedure and the judicial decisions given in his case. In doing so, the appellant violated his duty to act fairly and reasonably to enable proper judicial proceeding. In light of all the foregoing, there is no escaping of the conclusion that the appeal before us is one of those rare instances where the appellant’s bad faith conduct, who has taken practical measures to thwart the enforcement of the judgment rises to an abuse of court proceedings. Under these exceptional circumstances, in my opinion, it is justified to use the authority given to us and order the appeal be denied in limine.”
Although lack of good faith or unacceptable conduct do not, pursuant to the Israeli Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, provide independent cause to refuse recognition or enforcement of a foreign judgment, “however certainly this carries weight in the court’s considerations together with all other conditions”[1] for such recognition or enforcement. [Judge Keret-Meir’s ruling in Bankruptcy File (T.A.) 2193/08 First International Bank of Israel Ltd. v. Gold & Honey (1995) L.P. et al.
Earlier, the Jerusalem District Court’s judgment in D.C.C. (Jm.) 3137/04 Ahava (USA) Inc. v. J.W.G. Ltd (Ahava)[2]concerned whether a U.S. judgment precluding an Israeli company from marketing Israeli products in the United States through a website was a foreign judgment enforceable pursuant to the Enforcement Law. The court held that “the filter of ‘public policy’ allows us to uproot unjust outcomes that may arise from the application of a foreign law,”[3] and addressed at length the essence of public policy:[4]
What is public policy? It is a broad term, “flexible and not entirely definable” …. Some will emphasize the local nature of public policy… but it seems that the basic requirements of law, including good faith, equity, and human rights, do not carry national identities, nor do they evaporate at international borders. Recognition of this approach grew with the erosion of “the archaic definition of the sovereignty doctrine, and as territorial sovereignty boundaries between legal systems blurred” (I. Canor, Private International Law and the Decay of Sovereignty in the Globalization Age: The Application of Foreign Public Law on International Contracts… p. 491). This process expanded the definition of public policy and imparted it with a quality of tikkun olam (bettering society) in its literal sense, such that appropriate applications are made from the public and private law of foreign legal systems to a domestic forum. In this context, we can even identify certain international rules which obligate even the parties of a purely domestic contract (Canor, id. 513). The inclination to apply rules of global public policy will increase as the link between the contract and local law weakens. A component of this global public policy is the very need to enforce foreign judgments.
The District Court held essentially that the protection of intellectual property does not in and of itself violate public policy in Israel, as this includes as well the principle that prohibits taking another’s work or basing one’s work on it, and this principle also applies to trademark law and other protections related to the appearance of the product. In these circumstances, the court ruled that the prohibition placed by the U.S. court, on the basis of internal U.S. trademark law, did not conflict with public policy in Israel.
In D.C.C. (T.A.) 22673-07-10 Nader & Sons LLC et al v. Homayon Antony Namvar (Nader),[5] the District Court rejected arguments that a summary judgment by the Supreme Court of the state of New York was unenforceable in Israel as having been rendered in unjust and improper proceedings, so that it conflicted with the public policy of Israel. The respondent argued that the choice of such proceedings in a suit of such broad scope constituted lack of good faith and an attempt to evade thorough investigation of the claims, as well as that significant details and facts withheld from the New York court might have affected the outcome of the proceedings.
The court dismissed these arguments:[6]
As stated, external public policy, in the sense of Article 3(3) of the Foreign Judgments Enforcement Law, refers to conformance with the basic principles of Israeli law, and the argument of the respondent regarding the flaws that, in his opinion, characterize the proceedings in New York, as decisive as they may be, do not testify to any conflict with these basic principles (regardless of the validity of these claims) and are not directly connected to the content of the judgment.
In Justice Procaccia commented in C.A. 5793/05 The Great Synagogue Shone Halachot Association v. Netanya Municipality:[7]
It is true that the Arbitration Law, 5728-1968 does not set a binding deadline on the prevailing party in an arbitration award to file a motion for its confirmation.… Nevertheless, this does not signify that there exists no limit whatsoever for filing a motion for the confirmation of an arbitration award and that the procedural rights of the holder of such an award are everlasting. A party who prevailed in arbitration is required by procedural good faith to submit the award for confirmation within a reasonable time period, given the special circumstances of the relevant incident. A party who for years ignored the award, did not act on it, and appeared to no longer have any intention of enforcing it, is liable to face a procedural estoppel claim (Ottolenghi, Arbitration: Law and Procedure, 4th ed., 2005, 914-916). Like any other complaint filed with a court, a motion for confirmation of an arbitration award is also subject to the rules of procedural good faith and reasonability regarding the timing, form, and content of the filing. The civil rules of laches apply to the timing of filing, as they apply to civil suits in the framework of statutory periods of limitations.
The question of whether this judgment, which deals with a 30-year delay in filing a motion for the confirmation of an Israeli arbitration award, will also apply to an arbitral award issued abroad under the New York Convention, remains open and has not been addressed. Because the New York Convention and the regulations for its execution make no mention of laches, it is unclear if the application of the Convention should be restricted and subjected to those principles, thus bypassing the absence of deadline for filing for confirmation under the Convention. In general, foreign arbitration takes place between commercial entities or countries, and at times, the difficulty in enforcing arbitration awards for various reasons is universal. There are many cases in which enforcement in one country encounters protracted difficulties, and then, upon locating debtor’s assets in another country, the award holder applies for enforcement of the award in that country. This may be many years after the award was issued. Blocking the procedural path of the holder through laches is unjust, at least under such circumstances, and it appears that the New York Convention’s silence in this context is not for naught. Presumably for the same reason, the Convention does not list laches among the grounds for refusal to recognize or enforce an award, nor does it impose a time limit for filing a motion for the confirmation of an arbitration award under the Convention.
For more informaiton, see Haggai, Foreign Judgements in Israel — Recognition and Enforcement, published in Hebrew by the Israeli Bar Association. Springer published an English translation.
[1] See Judge Keret-Meir’s ruling in Bankruptcy File (T.A.) 2193/08 First International Bank of Israel Ltd. v. Gold & Honey (1995) L.P. et al.
Arbitration in Smart Contracts – Code Naïve v Code-Savvy
Written by Hetal Doshi & Sankalp Udgata
Combining law, computer science and finance in unprecedented ways, “Smart Contract” is the latest addition to the unending list of Internet of Things. Unlike a traditional contract, which only lays out the terms of agreement for subsequent execution, a smart contract autonomously executes some or all of the terms of the agreement as it are usually based on Block-chain. It has the potential to reshape our understanding of contract and technology law. The shift from the code naïve to the code-savvy, has surfaced problems in dispute resolution beyond the existing legal perception which this article aims at analysing and resolving.
Working of the Smart Contract
By removing the need for direct human involvement, a smart contract is deployed on to a distributed Trustless Public Ledger. However, in order for the smart contract to work efficiently, exactly specified conditions for the execution of the contract are necessary, otherwise, it will be impossible to automate the process. Also, smart contracts receive information from outside block-chain platform through the use of Oracle programs that mediate with external databases and are entered into the block-chain technology.
A Hornet’s Nest
Smart contract come with their own sets of limitation and drawbacks. Following are few of the many problems, inevitable in resolving disputes over smart contracts. Interestingly however, although these problems may be encountered by an Arbitral Tribunal, arbitration (with requisite checks) is the most efficient mechanism to deal with such problems.
Enforceability Quandary
- A) Formal Enforcement
A very fundamental and critical impediment, Courts and Tribunals are consistently skeptical in enforcing such unconventional contracts. Although the use of automated communication or system to conclude contracts or make it binding on the parties has been long accepted by the business community, a Tribunal is often troubled with disparity in validity of smart contracts over conflicting jurisdictions.
Secondly, Article 2.1.1 of UNIDROIT (PICC) undoubtedly includes automated contracting. However, problems may arise in relation to codes meeting the in writing requirement of UNCITRAL and the New York Convention.
- B) Substantive Enforcement
The artificial nature of contracting deprives actions of the human touch. Complexities arise when there a subsequent smart contracts. For example, if there is a supplementary smart contract, consent for which is sought from the parent contract. Since it is the codes in the parent smart contract that initiate the subsequent contracts and transactions and the performance, can consent be said to have been given by a mere code and is such consent valid and enforceable against such code.
A Hitch in the Seat
Given the distributed nature of block-chain i.e. a ledger which is spread across the network among all peers in the network and the operation of Smart Contracts, it is important to agree a seat for the arbitration to avoid satellite disputes about the applicable seat and/or procedural law.
Problems in Execution- Irreversibility and Irremediability
Since they are theorized to be complete contract by focusing on ex ante rather than ex post, they eliminate the act of remediation, by admitting no possibility of breach. However, the DAO case was incomplete as it failed to anticipate the possibility that coding errors could result in unexpected wealth transfers. In addition, smart contract may deal with commercial scenarios so complex and unpredictable that the code will fail to embed all possible answers to all possible questions.
Further, if the smart contract contains a mistake, security flaw, or does not accurately capture the parties’ intent, the smart contracts will be difficult to modify or change, due to a block-chain’s resilient and tamper resistant nature. The program will continue to blindly execute its code, regardless of the intent of the parties or changed circumstances. When the transaction is more complex, involving multiple players (humans or machines), multi-component assets and diverse jurisdictions, computer code smartness may easily turn into plain dumbness.
Needless to mention, a Tribunal or a Court will encounter several problems in executing a decision vis-à-vis a smart contract such as:
- Lack of in-rem jurisdiction- Reversing a transaction on a decentralised ledger with several contributors that may not even be parties before the Tribunal.
- Excusing future performance or specific performance- Since they operate automatically and are not flexible.
The Truth about Consent
Contracting also has issues such as duress, fraud, forgery, lack of legal capacity and unconscionability which require human judgement and cannot be scrutinised by a smart contract which simply functions on a series of binary inputs. Moreover, though it provides guarantee of execution to certain extent, it cannot verify whether the contracting parties have the legal capacity to get into legal relationships or business capacity to make an agreement.
It also does not care whether there truly exists consensus as idem between contractual parties, there is no possibility for the contract to be void or voidable. However, although codes are not natural language that might be vague or ambiguous, leaving space for interpretation. For a consensual dispute resolution mechanism like arbitration, the indispensable requirement of free consent and the evaluation of intention of parties cannot be comprehended by a smart contract that stands deprived of reason and morale.
This may be an issue in circumstances where the Smart Contract is entered into by a computer, is in code and/or and does not create legally binding contractual obligations under the applicable law. The solution to this can be that the Arbitration clause can become part of the Ricardian contract which like any other similar contract is a hybrid form of smart contract which is partly in human readable form.
The Catch in Imputing Liability in a Dispute
The code smart is sadly not insusceptible to security vulnerabilities and exploits like forking, which could cause a smart contract to operate unexpectedly and invalidate transactions, or worse, enable a third-party to siphon digital currency or other assets from contracting parties accounts. Scary, isn’t it?
However, since a Tribunal is only an in personam jurisdiction, it can barely inspect or issue directions against such third parties. Such vulnerabilities might also jeopardise the secrecy that arbitration aims to achieve.
It is not unjust to say that such a contract is dangerous enough to attract strict liability in case of any harm caused due to an error in coding. That, juxtaposed with the existence of foreseeable risk in execution of smart contracts poses a potentially huge hurdle to the exponentially growing use of block-chain technology.
Furthermore, disputes, to summarize, may arise:
- between the parties of a smart contract, or
- between two conflicting smart contracts.
Since the code smart is a form of artificial intelligence replacing human involvement, it is the second set of disputes where a Tribunal or Court will be troubled with the attachment of liability.
Cutting the Gordian knot – checks and suggestions
Given our shift from not so smart contracts, we must keep an eye for the following checklist while dealing with dispute resolution in smart contracts.
Formality requirements
Parties should therefore ensure the arbitration agreement meets any formality requirements under the governing law of the arbitration agreement and Smart Contract, the law of the seat and wherever the award is likely to be enforced.
Choice of seat
Parties should base check whether in their chosen seat,
- Domestic law does not render a Smart Contract illegal or unenforceable
- The disputes likely to arise are arbitrable
- The codified arbitration agreement in question will be upheld and enforced by the supervisory courts.
Tribunal with specialist technical knowledge
Some Smart Contract disputes will be fairly vanilla contract law disputes, but others will be of a highly technical nature, for example, where the code does not operate as expected. Pursuant to the novel nature of the smart contract the importance of having a tribunal familiar with the technology against the importance of having the dispute decided by experienced arbitrators becomes crucial.
Severable arbitration clause
Although the doctrine of separability protects the validity of an arbitration clause, the dispute resolution clause should always be kept independent of any smart codes.
Localised Termination Clause
Given the automated and perpetual nature of smart contracts, there should be an option to terminate the contract. Although non-amenability is an essential feature of a smart contract, the option to cede away from the distributed ledger (terminate the contract) should be sole switch available the each of the contributors. The code may prescribe conditions for pulling the plug, i.e. create joint switches. Therefore, a party shall not be able to terminate its obligations without assent from any of its debtor on the ledger. As a result, once the debt is settled either by payment of dues or by an award of a Tribunal, the parties may pull the plug.
Power of Pardon
Each party to a smart contract should be at liberty to excuse payment by a debtor in under a direction by a tribunal or a Court in case of a force majeure or any other scenario where performance is liable to be excused.
This list, although non-exhaustive, will certainly sustain best practices in arbitration until the next great invention in the sphere of technology and business will live to fight another day.
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.