Views
The “Coman” Case (C-673/16): Some reflections from the point of view of private international law
Written by Dr. iur. Baiba Rudevska (Latvia)
On 5 June 2018, the ECJ rendered a judgment in the Coman case (C-673/16). For the first time the ECJ had the opportunity to rule, on the concept of ‘spouse’ within the meaning of the Directive 2004/38/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 29 April 2004 on the right of citizens of the Union and their family members to move and reside freely within the territory of the Member States (Directive 2004/38) in the context of a same-sex marriage. Even if the Directive only covers questions related to the entry and residence in the European Union (EU), this judgment could be of interest for Private International lawyers as well. Read more
Petronas Lubricants: ECJ confirms that Art 20(2) Brussels I can be used by employer for assigned counter-claim
Last Thursday, the ECJ rendered a short (and rather unsurprising) decision on the interpretation of Art 20(2) Brussels I (= 22(2) of the Recast Regulation). In Petronas Lubricants (Case C 1/17), the Court held that an employer can rely on the provision to bring a counter-claim in the courts chosen by the employee even where said claim has been assigned to the employer after the employee had initiated proceedings.
The question had been referred to the ECJ in the context of a dispute between an employee, Mr Guida, and his two former employers, Petronas Lubricants Italy and Petronas Lubricants Poland. Mr Guida’s parallel employment contracts with these two companies had been terminated among allegations of wrongly claimed reimbursements. Mr Guida, who is domiciled in Poland, had sued his Italian employer in Italy for wrongful dismissal and his employer had brought a counter-claim for repayment of the sums Mr Guida had allegedly wrongfully received, which had been assigned by the Polish employer.
Art 20(2) Brussels I contains an exception to the rule in Art 20(1), according to which an employee can only be sued in the courts of their country of domicile, to allow the employer to bring a counter-claim in the courts chosen by the employee. Similar exceptions can be found in Art 12(2) Brussels I (= Art 14(2) of the Recast; for insurance contracts) and Art 16(3) Brussels I (= Art 18(3) of the Recast; for consumer contracts), all of which incorporate the ground for special jurisdiction provided in Art 6 No 3 Brussels I (= Art 8(3) of the Recast). In the present case, the ECJ had to decide whether this exception would also be available for counter-claims that had been assigned to the employer after the employee had initiated proceedings.
The Court answered this question in the affirmative, pointing out that
[28] … provided that the choice by the employee of the court having jurisdiction to examine his application is respected, the objective of favouring that employee is achieved and there is no reason to limit the possibility of examining that claim together with a counter-claim within the meaning of Article 20(2) [Brussels I].
At the same time, the Court emphasised that a counter-claim can only be brought in the court chosen by the employee if it fulfils the more specific requirements of Art 6 No 3 Brussels I, according to which the counter-claim must have arisen ‘from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based’. This has recently been interpreted by the ECJ (in Case C-185/15 Kostanjevec) as requiring that both claims have ‘a common origin’ (see [29]–[30] of the decision). Where this is the case – as it was here (see [31]–[32]) –, it does not matter that the relevant claims have only been assigned to the employer after the employee had initiated proceedings (see [33]).
Mareva injunctions under Singapore law
Whether the Singapore court has the jurisdiction or power to grant a Mareva injunction in aid of foreign court proceedings was recently considered by the Singapore High Court in PT Gunung Madu Plantations v Muhammad Jimmy Goh Mashun [2018] SGHC 64. Both plaintiff and defendant were Indonesian and the claim related to alleged breaches of duties which the defendant owed to the plaintiff. The plaintiff had obtained leave to serve the writ in Indonesia on the defendant. The defendant thereupon applied, inter alia, to set aside service of the writ and for a declaration that the court has no jurisdiction over him. In response, the plaintiff applied for a Mareva injunction against the defendant in respect of the defendant’s assets in Singapore. The plaintiff had, after the Singapore action was filed, commenced actions in Malaysia and Indonesia covering much the same allegations against the defendant.
Under Singapore law (excluding actions commenced in the Singapore International Commercial Court where different rules apply), leave to serve the writ on the defendant abroad may be granted at the court’s discretion if the plaintiff is able to show: (i) a good arguable case that the claim falls within one of the heads of Order 11 of the Rules of court; (ii) a serious issue to be tried on the merits; and (iii) Singapore is forum conveniens. On the facts, the parties were Indonesian and the alleged misconduct occurred in Indonesia. As the plaintiff was unable to satisfy the third requirement, the court discharged the order for service out the writ out of the jurisdiction. Other orders made in pursuant of the order for service out were also set aside.
On the Mareva injunction, the Singapore High Court adopted the majority approach in the Privy Council decision of Mercedes Benz v Leiduck [1996] 1 AC 284. Lord Mustill had distinguished between two questions, to be approached sequentially: first, the question of whether the court has in personam jurisdiction over the defendant; secondly, the question of whether the court has a power to grant a Mareva injunction to restrain the defendant from disposing of his local assets pending the conclusion of foreign court proceedings. Valid service is required to found in personam jurisdiction under Singapore law. In PT Gunung Madu Plantations, as in Mercedes Benz itself, as the answer to the first question was in the negative, the second question did not arise.
Justice Woo was cognisant of the difficulties caused by hewing to the traditional approach of viewing Mareva relief as strictly ancillary to local proceedings but stated ‘that is a matter that has to be left to a higher court or to the legislature’ (para 54). His Honour referenced developments in the UK and Australia, where freestanding asset freezing orders in aid of foreign proceedings are permitted. Further, the Singapore International Arbitration Act was amended in 2010 to give the court the power to grant an interim injunction in aid of a foreign arbitration. It is likely that legislative intervention will be required to develop Singapore law on this issue.
The judgment may be found here: http://www.singaporelaw.sg/sglaw/laws-of-singapore/case-law/free-law/high-court-judgments/23135-pt-gunung-madu-plantations-v-muhammad-jimmy-goh-mashun
News
Eulogy for Professor GUO Yujun
Written by Yan WANG, Huaqiao University
It was with great sadness that we received word from her family that Professor GUO Yujun passed away at 1:50 am GMT+8 on 22 April 2023, at the age of 59.
Professor GUO was a distinguished professor of private international law, art law, and cultural heritage law at the Wuhan University International Law Institute in China. She is the Vice-President and Secretary-General of China Society of Private International Law. During her 30 years at Wuhan University, she taught and mentored hundreds of students, inspiring many of them to work under her supervision from the undergraduate to doctoral level.
She published more than 100 academic articles and works in Chinese, English and Japanese with a wide range of domestic and international influence. She had been to Hokkaido University Law Faculty as a Japanese Government (MEXT) Scholarship student from the October 1991 to April 1993. During her academic career, she went to Harvard University, Osnabrück University, and Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law as a visiting scholar.
Professor GUO earned the affection from her family, friends, colleagues, and students. A list of her representative private international law publications can be found here.
One Small Step Forward: The Mainland China Is Trying to Differentiate Inter-regional Private Cases From Those Foreign-related Ones
For quite a long time, what China had been doing for its interregional private laws was modelling their solutions on international conventions such as the Hague Service Convention, the Hague Evidence Convention and the Hague Judgments Convention etc. Normally they eventually got a slimmed-down Arrangement for the corresponding matter. This was quite different from what happed in the EU where the enhanced versions of the Hague Conventions could be seen and something extra could even be achieved. Also different from the EU where the ECJ could give answers when many questions at national law level were elevated and tested in the context of Regulations at the EU level, there has been no common court for interregional instruments within China so far. Apart from those bilateral Arrangements, all regions within China are basically treating one another as a ‘foreign country’ in terms of private laws.
The situation is, however, changing, at least from the Mainland side. Yesterday, I was invited to attend a conference which was under the support of the Supreme People’s Court of PRC and organized by the High Court of Guangdong Province that is geographically the closest one to Hong Kong and Macau. The purpose of the conference was to read the Draft Interpretation prepared by a research team of the Guangdong High Court and to be formally adopted and issued by the Supreme People’s Court later on. This Draft Interpretation is, again, an unilateral act of the Mainland China who wants to better its civil procedural rules regarding cases related to Hong Kong and Macau (possibly also Taiwan included). Indeed, different from the past experience for the past decades where inter-regional private cases were generally handled in analogy with foreign-related ones, the Mainland China is now trying to differentiate them. It wants to have more advanced and enhanced rules for interregional private cases. Keep an eye on the development of Chinese interregional private laws ……
The International Dimension of Intellectual Property Disputes
Lex & Forum Law Review and Sakkoulas Publications SA are organizing an online conference on:
The International Dimension of Intellectual Property Disputes
PRESIDING:
Prof. Lia Athanasiou, University of Athens
PRESENTERS:
• Prof. Dan Svantesson, Faculty of Law, Bond University/Australia,
‘Intellectual Property disputes and PIL: A Swedish and Australian perspective’
• Prof. Dr. Marketa Trimble, Samuel S. Lionel Professor of Intellectual Property Law, William S. Boyd School of Law, University of Nevada, Las Vegas, Stanford University
‘The Territorial Discrepancy Between Intellectual Property Rights Infringement Claims and Remedies’
• Prof. Dr. Gerald Spindler, Faculty of Law, Georg-August Universität Göttingen
‘EU Digital Services Act und EU Digital Markets Act and its impact on private international law’
• Dr. Ioannis Revolidis, University of Malta,
‘International jurisdiction on online copyright infringements’
More information available here