Views
The Belgian Government unveils its plan for the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC)
Written by Guillaume Croisant, Université Libre de Bruxelles
In October 2017, as already reported in a previous post, the Belgian Government announced its intention to set up a specialised English-speaking court with jurisdiction over international commercial disputes, the Brussels International Business Court (“BIBC”). An update version of the text has finally been submitted to Parliament on 15 May 2018, after the Government’s initial draft faced criticisms from the High Council of Justice (relating to the BIBC’s independence and impartiality, its source of funding and its impact on the ordinary courts) and was subject to the review of the Conseil d’Etat. Read more
Proving Chinese Law: Deference to the Submissions from Chinese Government?
Written by Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law
The recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, concerns what weight should be given to the Chinese government’s submission of Chinese law. On Page 58 of the trial transcript, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg asked how about other countries dealing with formal submissions from the Chinese government. There are two examples.
One is Hong Kong. In TNB Fuel Services SDN BHD v China National Coal Group Corporation ([2017] HKCFI 1016), the issue is whether the defendant, a state-owned enterprise, is protected by Chinese absolute sovereignty immunity under Chinese law. The court deferred to an official letter provided by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Department in Mainland China. The Office answers no absolute sovereignty immunity to Chinese state-owned enterprises carrying out commercial activities. The Court adopted this opinion without second inquiry (para 14 of the judgment). After considering a bunch of other factors, the court ruled against the defendant.
The other is Singapore. In Sanum v. Laos ([2016] SGCA 57), the issue is whether the China-Laos Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) shall be applied to Macao Special Administrative Region. Chinese embassy in Laos and China Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided diplomatic announcements indicating that the BIT shall not be applied to Macao. However, the Court of Appeal of Singapore held that China’s announcements were inadmissible and, even if admitted, they did not change the applicability of the BIT to Macau. This is partly because, before the dispute with Sanum crystalized, no evidence showed that China and Laos had agreed that the BIT should not be applied to Macau. Therefore, the China’s diplomatic announcements should not be retroactively applied to a previous dispute. For a more detailed discussion, please see pages 16-20 of my article.
TNB Fuel Services and Sanum share important similarities with Animal Science Products, because the key issues are all about the proving of Chinese law. In the three cases, Chinese government all provided formal submissions to explain the meaning and the applicability of Chinese law. However, TNB Fuel Services and Sanum can also be distinguished from Animal Science Products, because comity plays no role in the former two cases. TNB Fuel Services concerns sovereign immunity, which is an issue that Hong Kong courts must follow China’s practices. This is established by Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates (FACV Nos. 5, 6 & 7 of 2010). Sanum is a case to set aside an investment arbitration award, so the Court of Appeal of Singapore need not consider comity between Singapore and China. In contrast, in Animal Science Products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit elaborated the importance of comity between the U.S. and China. Therefore, Animal Science Products should not be considered as a technical case of proving foreign laws. The U.S. Supreme Court may consider deferring to the submissions of Chinese government to a certain extent but allows judges to decide whether the Chinese government’s submission is temporally consistent with its position on the relevant issue of Chinese law.
Who Owns France.com?
France is a state. France.com, by contrast, is a domain name, and it was, until recently, owned not by the French state but instead by a Californian company, France.com, Inc. That conflict is now being litigated in a fascinating dispute reminiscent of the early days of the internet.
In those early days, in 1994 to be precise, a French-born individual living in the United States, Jean-Noël Frydman, registered the domain name France.com. The domain name is now held by a Californian company, France.com Inc, which Frydman set up. The website, at first dedicated to general information for Francophiles around the world, was later expanded to operate as a travel site. But France.com, Inc, did not, it appears, own trademarks in Europe. This enabled a Dutch company, Traveland Resorts, to register French and European word and graphic marks for France.com in 2010. In 2014, France.com, Inc brought suit in France against Traveland for fraudulent filings of trademarks and achieved a settlement under which Traveland transferred the trademarks.
But that was a Pyrrhic victory. The French state and its own travel development agency, Atout, intervened in the litigation, claiming the trademarks for itself instead. Atout had been running, since 2010, its own information site, france.fr. French state and Atout were successful, first before the Tribunal de Grande Instance, Paris , and then, partly, on appeal before the Cour’ d’appel de Paris (English translation, note by Alison Bouakel) As a consequence, web.com transferred the domain in 2018. Now, France.com immediately directs to France.fr.
So far, the conflict is mostly a French affair. But Frydman is taking the litigation to the United States. France.com, Inc has brought suit in Federal Court in Virginia against the French State, Atout, and against Verisign, the authoritative domain registry of all .com addresses. The suit alleges cybersquatting, reverse domain hijacking, expropriating, trademark infringement, and federal unfair competition. US courts and WIPO panels have so far not looked favorably at foreign government’s claims for their own .com domain name; examples include PuertoRico.com, NewZealand.com, and Barcelona.com. Will the French State be more successful, given the French judgment in its favor?
Although neither the French courts nor the complaint in the United States address conflict of laws issues, the case is, of course, full of those. Are the French state and its travel agency protected by sovereign immunity? The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act contains an exception for commercial activities and is limited to sovereign acts: Does ownership of a domain name constitute commercial activity? Surely, many of the activities of Atout do. Or is it linked to sovereignty? After all, France is the name of the country (though not, ironically, the official name.) The U.S. Court of Appeal for the Second Circuit left the question open in 2002 (Virtual Countries, Inc. v. South Africa, 300 F.3d 230).
Must the federal court recognize the French judgment? That question is reminiscent of the Yahoo litigation. Then, a French court ordered that Yahoo.com could not offer Nazi paraphernalia on its auction website. Yahoo brought a declaratory action in federal court against recognizability of the judgment in the United States. The affair created a lively debate on the limits of territorial reach in internet-related litigation, a debate that is still not fully resolved.
Relatedly, did the French state engage in illegal expropriation without compensation? Such acts of expropriation are in principle limited to the territory of the acting state, which could mean that the French state’s actions, if so qualified, would be without legal effect in the United States.
To what extent is US law applicable to a French trademark? By contrast, to what extent can the French trademark determine ownership of the domain? Trademarks are a perennially difficult topic in private international law, given their territorial limitations; they conflict in particular with the ubiquity of the internet.
Is the top level domain name – .com, as opposed to .fr – a relevant connecting factor in any of these matters? That was once considered a promising tool. But even if .fr could in some way link to France as owner, it is not clear that .com links to the United States, given that it has long been, effectively, a global top level domain. On the other hand, most governments do not own their own .com domain. And US courts have, in other cases (most famously concerning barcelona.com) not doubted applicability of US law.
A timeline with links to documents can be found at Frydman’s blog site.
News
Lex & Forum Vol. 1/2023
This post has been prepared by Prof. Paris Arvanitakis
Corporate cross-border disputes in modern commercial world have taken on a much more complex dimension than in the early years of the EU. Issues such as the relationship between the registered and the real seat (see e.g. CJEU, 27.9.1988, Daily Mail, C-81/87), the possibility of opening a branch in another Member State (e.g. ECJ, 9.3.1999, Centros/Ehrvervs-og, C-212/97), or the safeguarding of the right of free establishment by circumventing contrary national rules not recognizing the legal capacity of certain foreign companies (CJEU, 5.11.2002, Überseering/Nordic Construction, C-208/00), which were dealt with at an early stage by the ECJ/CJEU, now seem obsolete in the face of the onslaught of new transnational corporate forms, cross-border conversions and mergers, the interdependence of groups of companies with scattered parent companies and subsidiaries, or cross-border issues of directors’ liability or piercing the corporate veil, which create complex and difficult problems of substantive, procedural and private international law. These contemporary issues of corporate cross-border disputes were examined during an online conference of Lex&Forum on 23.2.2023, and are the main subject of the present issue (Focus.
In particular, the Preafatio of the issue hosts the valuable thoughts of Advocate General of the CJEU, Ms Laila Medina, on the human-centered character of the European Court’s activity (“People-centered Justice and the European Court of Justice”), while the main issue (Focus) presents the introductory thoughts of the President of the Association of Greek Commercialists, Emeritus Professor Evangelos Perakis, Chair of the event, and the studies of Judge Evangelos Hatzikos on “Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-border Corporate Disputes”, of Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki Rigas Giovannopoulos on “Cross-border Issues of Lifting the Corporate Veil”, of Dr. Nikolaos Zaprianos on “Directors Civil Liability towards the Legal Person and its Creditors”, of Professor at the University of Thrace Apostolos Karagounidis on the “Corporate Duties and Liability of Multinational Business Groups for Human Rights’ Violations and Environmental Harm under International and EU Law”, and of Professor at the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki George Psaroudakis, on “Particularities of cross-border transformations after Directive (EU) 2019/2121”.
The case law section of the issue presents the judgments of the CJEU, 7.4.2022, V.A./V.P., on subsidiary jurisdiction under Regulation 650/2012 (comment by G.-A. Georgiades), and CJEU, 10.2.2022, Share Wood, on the inclusion of a contract of soil lease and cultivation within the Article 6 § 4 c of Rome II Regulation (comment by N. Zaprianos). The present issue also includes judgments of national courts, among which the Cour d’ Appel Paris no 14/20 and OLG München 6U 5042/2019, on the adoption of anti-suit injunctions by European courts in order to prevent a contrary anti-suit injunction by US courts (comment by S. Karameros), are included, as well as the decision of the Italian CassCivile, Sez.Unite n. 38162/22, on the non-recognition of a foreign judgment establishing parental rights of a child born through surrogacy on the grounds of an offence against public policy (comment by I. Valmantonis), as well as the domestic decisions of Thessaloniki Court of First Instance 1201/2022 & 820/2022 on jurisdiction and applicable law in a paternity infringement action (comment by I. Pisina). The issue concludes with the study of the doctoral candidate Ms. Irini Tsikrika, on the applicable law on a claim for damages for breach of an exclusive choice-of-court agreement, and the presentation of practical issues in European payment order matters, edited by the Judge Ms. Eleni Tzounakou.
Second Issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quaterly for 2023
The second issue of Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly for 2023 was published today. It contains the following private international law articles, case notes, and book reviews:
PS Davies & D Foxton, “A View from Westbridge – Arbitrability in the Singapore Court of Appeal”
H Sanderson, “The Divine Comity”
P MacMahon, “Conditional Agreements and Arbitration Law’s Seperability Principle”
A CY Chan & K KC Tse, “The Tort Gateway: The Missing Jigsaw Piece?”
L Zhao & Z Jing, “Conflict of Jurisdiction between the UK and China and Enforcement of Arbitral awards and Judgments”
A Briggs, Book Review of “Freezing Injunctions in Private International Law” by F Šaranovi?
Dutch Journal of PIL (NIPR) – issue 2023/1
The latest issue of the Dutch Journal on Private International Law (NIPR) has been published.
NIPR 2023 issue 1
Editorial
M.H. ten Wolde / p. 1-2
A.V.M. Struycken, Arbitrages in Nederland waarop de Nederlandse rechter geen toezicht kan houden / p. 3-8
Abstract
The Code of Civil Procedure contains a chapter on arbitration. Procedures and awards rendered in the Netherlands are subject to a certain degree of scrutiny by the civil courts. This authority, however, does not extend to arbitration on litigation between private enterprises and a foreign State.
This exception applies to such awards rendered at the Peace Palace under the flag of the Permanent Court of Arbitration. This also applies to awards, if rendered in the Netherlands, based on investment treaties like the Washington Convention of 18 March 1965 which created the International Center for the Settlement of Investment Disputes (ICSID). It was correctly recognized by the Act of 1 November 1980 providing for a special rule.
A 1983 proposal to declare that awards rendered by the Iran-US Tribunal situated in The Hague are Dutch awards was not successful. The proposal was only retracted in 2000.
The Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) 2016, between the EU and its Member States, on the one side, and Canada, on the other, which was approved for ratification by the Netherlands in July 2022, provides for arbitration in its Articles 27 and 28, within the framework of its investment court system. The recognition and execution of its awards in the Netherlands must still be implemented.
In arbitration based on investment treaties an issue of public international law is involved. This is ignored in Dutch caselaw, however.
N. Touw & I. Tzankova, Parallel actions in cross-border mass claims in the EU: a (comparative) lawyer’s paradise? / p. 9-30
Abstract
In the context of cross-border mass harms, collective redress mechanisms aim to offer (better) access to justice for affected parties and to facilitate procedural economy. Even when national collective redress mechanisms seek to group cases together, it is likely that cross-border parallel actions will still be filed. Parallel actions risk producing irreconcilable judgments with conflicting or inconsistent outcomes and the rules of European private international law aim to reduce this risk. This contribution argues that the rules on parallel actions currently run the risk of not achieving their objective in the context of mass claims and collective redress. Given their lack of harmonization, when collective redress mechanisms with different levels of representation are used, the application of the rules on parallel actions can cause procedural chaos. In addition, judges have a great deal of discretion in applying the rules on parallel actions, whilst there is a lack of guidance on how they should use this discretion and what criteria to apply. They may be unaware of the effects on the access to justice of their decisions to stay or proceed with a parallel collective action. This contribution argues that there should be more awareness about the interaction (and sometimes perhaps even a clash) between the goals of private international law and of collective redress and of how access to justice can come under pressure in the cross-border context when the traditional rules on parallel actions are applied. A stronger focus on the training and education of judges and lawyers in comparative collective redress could be a way forward.
N. Mouttotos, Consent in dispute resolution agreements: The Pechstein case law and the effort to protect weaker parties / p. 31-50
Abstract
The unending Pechstein saga involving the German speed skater and Olympic champion Claudia Pechstein and the International Skating Union has acquired a new interesting turn with the decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court. Among the various interesting questions raised, the issue of party autonomy, especially in instances of inequality in bargaining power, and the resulting compelled consent in dispute resolution agreements is of great relevance for private international law purposes. This article deals with the part of the judgment that focuses on the consensual foundation that underpins arbitration in the sporting context, providing a systematic examination with other areas of the law where other forms of regulation have emerged to remedy the potential lack of consent. This is particularly the case when it involves parties who are regarded as having weaker bargaining power compared to their counterparty. In such cases, procedural requirements have been incorporated in order to ensure the protection of weaker parties. The legal analysis focuses on European private international law, also merging the discussion with substantive contract law and efforts to protect weaker parties by way of providing information. This last aspect is discussed as a remedy to the non-consensual foundation of arbitration in the sporting context.
CASE NOTES
A. Attaibi & M.A.G. Bosman, Forumkeuzebeding in algemene voorwaarden: de ‘hyperlink-jurisdictieclausule’ nader bezien. HvJ EU 24 november 2022, ECLI:EU:C:2022:923, NIPR 2022-549 (Tilman/Unilever) / p. 51-58
Abstract
Tilman v. Unilever concerns the validity of a jurisdiction clause included in the general terms and conditions contained on a website, in case the general terms and conditions are referenced via a hyperlink in a written B2B contract. The CJEU held that such a jurisdiction clause is valid, provided that the formal requirements of Article 23 Lugano Convention 2007, that ensure the counterparty’s consent to the clause, are met. In this annotation the authors discuss and comment on the CJEU judgment, also in the broader context of earlier CJEU judgments on jurisdiction clauses contained in general terms and conditions.
K.J. Saarloos, Arbitrage en de effectiviteit van de EEX-Verordening naar aanleiding van de schipbreuk van de Prestige in 2002. Hof van Justitie EU 20 juni 2022, zaak C-700/20, ECLI:EU:C:2022:488, NIPR 2022-544 (London Steam-Ship Owners’ Mutual Insurance Association Ltd/Spanje) / p. 59-74
Abstract
The CJEU’s ruling in the Prestige case confirms the rule from the J/H Limited case (2022) that a judgment by a court of a Member State is a judgment within the meaning of Article 2 of the EEX Regulation if the judgment is or could have been the result of adversarial proceedings. The content of the judgment is not relevant for the definition. Judgments recognising judgments by arbitrators or the courts of third countries are therefore judgments within the meaning of the EEX Regulation. The question of the definition of the term judgment must be distinguished from the material scope of the EEX Regulation. A judgment recognising an arbitral award is not covered by the EEX Regulation’s rules on recognition and enforcement; however, such a judgment may be relevant for the application of the rule that the recognition of the judgment of a court of a Member State may be refused if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment given in the Member State addressed.
The ruling in the Prestige case also makes it clear that a judgment by a Member State court on arbitration cannot impair the effectiveness of the EEX Regulation. If it does, that judgment cannot be opposed to the recognition of an incompatible judgment from the other Member State. The CJEU thus formulates an exception to the rule that a judgment from a Member State may not be recognised if the judgment is irreconcilable with a judgment in the Member State addressed: that ground for refusal is not applied if the irreconcilable judgment in the requested Member State violates certain rules in the EEX Regulation. The ruling raises questions both in terms of substantiation and implications for the future. It is not convincing to limit a statutory limitation on the effectiveness of the EEX Regulation by invoking the same effectiveness. Moreover, the ruling creates tension with the rule that the New York Convention takes precedence over the EEX Regulation.