On March 8-9, 2012, the Academy of European Law will host a conference on New Legislative Proposals on Cross-Border Litigation in Trier.

The conference will analyse the most important recent EU initiatives in the field of civil procedure: Brussels I, ADR & ODR, Collective Redress and Freezing of Bank Accounts.

Brussels I

Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: state of play
European Commission: Karen Vandekerckhove
Danish EU Presidency: Jens Kruse Mikkelsen

Analysis of the most topical issues
Stefania Bariatti

Collective Redress

Brussels I and collective redress
Mihail Danov

Hands-on experience with mass claims
Alexander Layton

A coherent approach to European collective redress
Ianika Tzankova

ADR and ODR

What member states, consumers and business need to do to establish effective ADR systems
Christopher Hodges

What changes does the Directive on ADR bring? How will the new EU-wide ODR platform work in practice?
Sebastian Bohr

ADR & ODR: a win-win solution for consumers and business alike?
Fatma Sahin

ADR and the rule of law: a critical approach
Joachim Zekoll

EU Wide Freezing of Bank Accounts

The Draft Regulation Creating a European Account Preservation Order (EAPO)
Marieke van Hooijdonk

What protection does the debtor receive?
Gilles Cuniberti

Assessment of the proposal
Burkhard Hess

The Common Law Perspective
Helen McCarty

Panel discussion: Who pays the costs? What will be the next steps?
Introduction by Jérôme Carriat

The full programme can be found here.

A Bill for International Litigation was presented to the Congress of Peru in November 2011. Based on the Latin American Model Bill for International Litigation of 2004, it is an apparently simple draft – just ten articles-, which nevertheless covers some of the most important topics in cross-border litigation: service of process; evidence; damages (compensation); appeals; settlements; lis pendens; actionability; and mass claims.

 The Peruvian project aims to provide a practical tool for Peruvians plaintiffs in Peruvian cross-border conflicts. Article 1 makes this task easier by accepting summons in any form admitted in the country where the documents are to be served, therefore allowing an enormous saving of time and money.

 Article 2 declares the admissibility of evidence already used in a foreign proceeding; such materials will nevertheless be considered again by the Peruvian judge “according to the principles of sound criticism.” Only the relevant part of the foreign documents needs translation: again, a measure to save time and money.

 Article 3 deals with damages, which will be awarded (calculated) following the parameters of the relevant foreign law. Though the conflict rule is adequate, it could still be improved through a favor laesi.

 Appeal as a delaying tactic is prevented by Article 4. Appeal will normally deploy only suspensive effect, thus allowing the international procedure to be carried out speedily.

 Article 5 prevents defendant and plaintiff from reaching an agreement without the latter’s counsel being informed. The purpose of the rule is to protect both the lawyer who has invested time and money in the process and the actor who, pressed by necessity, accepts an inconvenient settlement.

 Article 6 recalls an already existing rule: in cases of concurrent international proceedings the court where the lawsuit was filed first keeps jurisdiction, just as it happens in domestic cases.

 Article 7 of the Bill provides with  a separate action against all unjustifiable harm committed abroad. The rule tends to the protection of Peruvians interests when no other remedy is available.

 The project includes a ten-year statute of limitations that can be extended to fifteen years in case of debtor’s bad faith. Prescription is interrupted under several circumstances: for instance, when the creditor did not know about the damage or its source; the fact of filing overseas also suspends the limitation period. This is reasonable and should be welcomed in view of the technical development that has led, for example, to diseases with a long period of latency, as it happens with exposure to chemicals products.

Consolidation of claims in cases involving a large number of actors or defendants is provided for in Article 9. It is for the judge to take “practical steps for the case to develop rapidly within the limits of due process.” It seems that this Article contains the seeds of mass action or class actions.

 The overall conclusion is that the Bill, if approved, will certainly help cross-border litigation to be easier and more efficient in Peru.

Many thanks to Henry Saint Dahl, Inter-American Bar Foundation, for the hint.

 

We have previously reported on this case here. This is a collective redress action to seek damages resulting from the Volkswagen emission scandal (also known as Dieselgate).  Proceedings were commenced in the Netherlands against Volkswagen (Group) and involve other related parties such as Audi, Seat, Skoda, Porsche, Robert Bosch, importer(s) and dealers in the Netherlands and abroad. This action is made pursuant to the Dutch Collective Redress of Mass Damages Act (Wet afwikkeling massaschade in collectieve actie, WAMCA).

On 18 January 2021, a case management -pre-trial- hearing (regiezitting in Dutch) was held before the Amsterdam District Court. The purpose of this meeting was for all the parties involved to exchange views on “the desired sequence of subjects to be addressed in the initial phases of the WAMCA procedure”. This includes issues such as the jurisdiction of the Dutch court over the claims, the law that would be applicable to the case, the appointment of an Exclusive Representative Party, etc. For more information, click here.

As indicated before, one of the institutes / organisations seeking to be the exclusive representative in this collective redress action is Diesel Emissions Justice Foundation (DEJF).  The DEJF has stated that: “The [Amsterdam District Court] has indicated that a decision on the order of handling of [these] points can be expected on March 3.”

See also our previous posts: Mass Litigation in Times of Corona and Developments in the Netherlands, Jurisdiction over financial damages – the A-G Opinion in the Volkswagen Case before the CJEU (CJEU) and The VW NOx Emissions Group Litigation, [2019] EWHC 783(QB), and (some aspects of) CoL (UK).

Interestingly, the DEJF has reported about a recent case where a Spanish court ordered damages against Volkswagen. I transcribe the summary of the case provided on the DEFJ website: “25 January 2021 – A Madrid court has found Volkswagen guilty of the use of manipulated software, or “cheating software”. In proceedings brought by a Spanish consumer association against Volkswagen on behalf of 5,400 affiliated consumers, the judge awarded damages totalling € 16.3million for unfair commercial practices, amounting to an average of € 3,000 per consumer. The judge used a pragmatic method to determine this amount; half to compensate for the depreciation of the affected cars and the inconvenience of use of having to have the cars repaired, and the other half for “moral damage” as breach of confidence due to the advertised “green” image of these cars, the environmental damages and the impact on society.” The judgment is available here (in Spanish).

And let us not forget the significant judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 17 December 2020 (Second Chamber): Criminal proceedings against X, Request for a preliminary ruling from the Juge d’instruction du tribunal de grande instance de Paris Case C-693/18 (in French, which was the language of the proceedings). See also here (in other languages but not yet in English). Although this case arises in the context of criminal proceedings, it provides support to the claims above and in establishing liability.

More information is available here.

Conference ‘Frontiers in Civil Justice’ held on 16 and 17 November 2020 (online)

By Jos Hoevenaars & Betül Kas, Erasmus University Rotterdam (postdocs ERC consolidator project Building EU Civil Justice)

As announced earlier on this blog, the Conference Frontiers in Civil Justice organized by the ERC team together with Ilja Tillema of Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam, took place on 16 and 17 November 2020.

The conference addressed four key issues in civil justice, which require a deeper and renewed reflection in light of their contribution to facilitating access to justice. Those concern the shaping of the interaction between formal and informal justice (panel I), the digitalization of consumer dispute resolution (panel II), the collectivizing and monetizing of civil litigation (panel III) and justice innovation and frontier developments in civil justice (panel IV). Renowned speakers and selected speakers following a call for papers gave their views during the two-day conference that, although set up previously as a blended event with online as well as live attendance at Erasmus University in Rotterdam, was forced to move fully online due to the tightening of Covid-19 measures in the Netherlands.

The Needs and Challenges of Digitizing Justice in Europe (Keynote 1)

The first day of the conference was kicked-off by the keynote speech of Hrvoje Grubisic (DG Justice and Consumers, European Commission). Grubisic underlined the necessity of digitalisation in the justice field in order to guarantee Europe’s citizens access to justice. The EU’s efforts of furthering the employment of digital technologies in the justice area is particularly warranted by the persistent increase in cross-border activities in civil and commercial matters. Grubisic pointed to the importance of the principles contained in the Tallinn ministerial declaration in framing and guiding the Commission’s strategy of the digitalisation of justice in the EU. The current COVID-19 crisis has accelerated the Commission’s activities. On the basis of its roadmap setting out the need to steer and coordinate the digitalisation of justice at EU level, the Commission plans to publish a communication of its policy priorities by the end of 2020. In practical terms, the Commission intends to employ a toolbox approach, starting with the identification of cross-border judicial procedures that can be digitised, ascertaining the appropriate IT tools (e.g. e-CODEX based systems) and ensuring funding sources for the Member States.

Shaping the Interaction between Formal and Informal Justice (Panel I)

Subsequently, Elisabetta Silvestri (University of Pavia) introduced the first panel dealing with the interaction between formal and informal justice. Silvestri stressed the importance of understanding how formal and informal justice can coexist in a balanced relationship that is able to grant individuals access to justice. According to her, the need for a fruitful cooperation between courts and ADR providers in the best interest of stakeholders became even more pronounced in the current pandemic. The presentation of Diana Wallis (Hull University; former ELI president) reflected on the differing nature of formal and informal justice. Wallis traces how the EU has promoted the shift of the delivery of justice away from the nation states’ courts to ADR bodies. While the ELI Statement addressed the practicalities of the relationship between private and public justice, the deeper question about how to address the dangers and drawbacks of privatized justice remains unresolved. Anna Nylund (The Arctic University of Norway) submitted in her presentation that many ADR processes fail to deliver on their promises of improved access to justice. Nylund sees ADR to be based predominantly on individualistic values, expecting citizens to exercise self-determination, and as such therefore geared towards the highly educated middle class. The gap between theory and practice contributes to the reluctance towards ADR processes in Europe. She therefore proposed a step-by-step approach of re-designing ADR according to context-dependent goals. The following two presentations provided insights into the relationship between formal and informal justice by drawing on the concrete experiences of two national legal systems: Masood Ahmed (University of Leicester) presented the experience of the English civil justice system with compulsory ADR. While compulsory ADR has been traditionally dismissed by the English judiciary, a divergent judicial approach has emerged which impliedly obliges the parties to engage with ADR. Ahmed criticises the persistence of the traditional approach and calls upon the courts to fully embrace their case management powers in making ADR orders. Stefaan Voet (KU Leuven) reports how informal justice has been introduced by a number of procedural reforms in Belgium. Voet’s presentation addresses five critical issues regarding informal justice processes, namely (1) their possible mandatory nature; (2) their quality; (3) the procedural guarantees offered by them; (4) the enforcement of their outcomes; and (5) the interaction with the formal justice process.

Digitalization of Consumer Dispute Resolution (Panel II)

The second day of the conference started with a panel, chaired by Burkhard Hess (Max Planck Institute Luxembourg), focusing on online dispute resolution (ODR) for consumer claims, using case-studies as a starting point to discuss how different types of cODR procedures can contribute to consumers’ access to justice. Martin Ebers (University of Tartu) presented on the promise and challenge of AI based techniques in cODR and its impact on due process. Giving an overview of current uses of AI in different phases of disputes, from case management and automated anonymisation to data inference and automated decision-making, Ebers laid out the framework for future regulation of the use of AI in European ODR. Subsequently, Marco Giacalone (Vrije Universiteit Brussels) used examples from the US, Canada, Australia and Slovakia to zoom in on the concept and application of e-negotiation. Reflecting on the potential of this mode of assisted and automated negotiation in resolving disputes, Giacalone considers EU practices of e-negotiation for consumer dispute resolution as significant yet insufficient, with considerable room for improvement in enhancing consumer access to justice in the EU. Eline Verhage (Leiden University) presented on the recent experience of the Dutch Foundation for Consumer Complaints Boards (Geschillencommissies) in responding to the Covid-19 crisis. Presenting very recent data on the move to online hearings she reflected on the impact on the ‘voluntariness gap’ in these out-of-court alternative dispute schemes, concluding that virtual hearings seem a promising cODR tool for enhancing business participation, due to the increased option and lower costs. Finally, Emma van Gelder (Erasmus University Rotterdam) discussed observations from empirical research on Klachtencompas (a free online complaint platform of the Dutch consumer protection organization Consumentenbond) and the in-house dispute resolution platform used by Paypal, to discuss the benefits and drawbacks of these ‘first-line’ complaint resolution mechanisms. The main point of discussion following the various examples presented during the panel was on the applicability of Article 6 ECHR and Article 47 of the EU Charter, and on the question of how to apply the notions of fair trial and due process to both certified and uncertified ADR schemes in the EU.

Current Issues in Access to Justice: An English Perspective (Keynote 2)

In the second keynote of the conference, professor Dame Hazel Genn (University College London) provided a very timely insight into current developments in the English civil justice system in the context of the Covid-19 pandemic. Bringing together the most recent insights from (some unpublished) rapid reviews of the rush to mostly online justice administration and reflecting on the impact of online courts and tribunals on access to justice especially for those that are in most dire need of legal assistance and resolution. Quite in contrast to previous discussions about the great potential of technological innovations in the areas of small claims and consumer dispute resolution, Professor Genn stressed the need to also look at what we potentially lose in procedural and substantive terms when hearings are undertaken remotely or on paper. Contrasting the great benefits of technology in terms of convenience, economy and efficiency with its downsides apparent in both the experiences of litigants as well as the judiciary, Genn ended on the pertinent question: Are we processing cases or are we doing justice?

Collectivizing & Monetizing Civil Litigation (Panel III)

The third panel chaired by John Sorabji (Barrister, 9 St John Street; University College London) turned attention to collective redress via adjudication and, specifically, the funding of civil litigation. Ianika Tzankova (Tilburg University) drew lessons for the funding of collective redress in global disputes from the Dutch experience. In particular, Tzankova explored and compared the financing of collective civil litigation on the basis of the Dexia case which was the first major consumer mass claim in the Netherlands and the investor litigation in the Fortis collective action, which resulted in the first global collective settlement that can be considered ‘EU-originated’. Astrid Stadler (University of Konstanz) explained in her presentation the German situation regarding litigation funding of collective actions. In particular, Stadler presented on how the judiciary dealt with third-party funding arrangements and funding by legal tech companies and SPVs in recent case law. The judiciary’s strong aversion against entrepreneurial litigation endangers the effective enforcement of the law. Stadler concluded that third-party funding must be available for representative claimants and should be regulated by the legislator. Complementing Tzankova’s presentation, Ilja Tillema (Erasmus University Rotterdam) reflected on the rise of entrepreneurial mass litigation in the Netherlands. Particularly in the last decade, spurred by the potential of large earnings, entrepreneurial parties have started to diversify the Dutch mass litigation landscape. Tillema reflected on the pros and cons of their involvement, presented empirical material of the amount and types of cases in which entrepreneurial parties are involved, and evaluated the way that the legislator and courts have dealt with this development. Catherine Piché (Université de Montréal) elucidated Quebec’s experience with public forms of financing class litigation. According to Piché, the Canadian province of Quebec’s Fonds d’aide aux recours collectifs (the assistance fund for class action lawsuits) serves not only as an effective class litigation funding mechanism, but also as a mandatory independent oversight body. Piché evaluates that financing class actions publicly through assistance by such entities is the most appropriate and effective way to finance class action litigation and could therefore serve as a model for other legal systems.

Innovations in Civil Justice (Panel IV) 

Chaired by professor Alan Uzelac (University of Zagreb) the final panel brought together speakers following a call for papers. The call invited submissions on topics relating to justice innovation, specifically about the development of initiatives aimed at bringing justice closer to citizens, their relevance for access to justice and the judicial system, and the challenges they may pose for judicial administration, litigants and other stakeholders. The presentation of Iris van Domselaar (UvA) kicked off with legal philosophical reflections on civil justice innovations that aim to ‘bring justice closer to the citizen’, and posed the question to what extent the ‘pragmatic turn’ in civil justice systems is reconcilable with courts being objective justice-affording institutions, as such setting the scene for the specific examples of innovation and developments that were to follow. Pietro Ortolani (Radboud University Nijmegen) & Catalina Goanta (Maastricht University) and next Naomi Appelman & Anna van Duin (UvA) presented to the audience two specific examples that raised divergent questions about the frontier civil justice development playing out in the realm of online social media. The former, by comparatively analyzing reporting systems and underlying procedural rights of users related to content moderation by four social media platforms (Facebook, Twitch, TikTok and Twitter), presented an example where innovation may actually pose a threat to access to justice. While the latter, reporting on the findings of empirical research on the need for procedural innovation in the Netherlands to quickly take down online content that causes personal harm, presented how innovations in civil justice could contribute to the effective protection of rights in the digital realm. The final topic of this panel was presented by Nicolas Kyriakides & Anna Plevri (University of Nicosia) who, taking Zuckerman’s predictions on AI’s role in guaranteeing access to justice as a starting point, presented their own evaluation on this matter, encouraging further debate on AI’s role in adjudication. By elucidating the potential of AI to render the familiar open-court, multi-party process of justice completely unrecognisable, they warned about the potential loss of perceived legitimacy of the justice system as a whole, should AI systematically penetrate the entire justice system.

Although the conference was forced to move fully online, the digital setting did not stifle the interaction with the audience. Through the use of the chat function and live chat moderators the speakers were able to answer questions from the audience in the chat and the chairs were able to open up the floor to members of the audience. This led to lively discussions very much resembling a live setting.

This conference was organised by Erasmus School of Law of Rotterdam University and funded by an ERC consolidator grant from the European Research Council for the project ‘Building EU Civil Justice’.

 

by Ralf Michaels and Jakob Olbing

Note: This repository will stay permanent at www.conflictoflaws.net/corona.
Please send additions to olbing@mpipriv.de

Updated: November 08, 2021

The coronavirus has created a global crisis that affects all aspects of life everywhere. Not surprisingly, that means that the law is affected as well. And indeed, we have seen a high volume of legislation and legal regulations, of court decisions, and of scholarly debates. In some US schools there are courses on the legal aspects of corona. Some disciplines are organizing symposia or special journal issues to discuss the impact of the pandemic on the respective discipline.

For a time Private international law has been vividly discussing the relevance of the crisis for the field, and of the field for the crisis Private international law matters are crucial to countless issues related to the epidemic – from production chains through IP over possible vaccines to mundane questions like the territorial application of lockdown regulations.

Knowledge of these issues is important. It is important for private international lawyers to realize the importance of our discipline. But it is perhaps even more important for decision makers to be aware of both the pitfalls and the potentials of conflicts of law.

This site, which we hope to update continually, is meant to be a place to collect, as comprehensively as possible, sources on the interaction of the new coronavirus and the discipline. The aim is not to provide general introductions into private international law, or to lay out sources that could be relevant. Nor is this meant to be an independent scholarly paper. What we try to provide is a one-stop place at which to find private international law discussions worldwide regarding to coronavirus.

For this purpose, we limit ourselves to the discipline as traditionally understood—jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition and enforcement, international procedure. Coronavirus has other impacts on transnational private law and those deserve attention too, but we want to keep this one manageable.

Please help make this a good informative site. Please share any reference that you have – from any jurisdiction, in any legislation – and we will, if possible, share them on this site. Please contact olbing@mpipriv.de

 

General

In the early beginning of the Pandemic, contributions from scholars, courts, international institutes and politicians where of a more general character as it was difficult to predict the scope and duration of the new situation.

The European Law Institute for example issued a set of Principles for the COVID-19 Crisis, covering a variety of legal topics such as Democracy (Principle 3) and Justice System (Principle 5) as well as Moratorium on Regular Payments, Force Major and Hardship, Exemption from Liability for simple Negligence (Principles 12 to 14). Ending with something everybody hopes for: Return to Normality (Principle 15).

The Secretary General of the Hague Conference recorded a short online message from his home addressing the most urgent topics. Ensuing, the Permanent Bureau developed a Toolkit for resources and publications relevant to the current global situation.

The university of Oxford‘s Blavatnik School of Government collects all measures by governments around the world in the “Coronavirus Government Response Tracker”.

A German journal is dedicated solely to the topic “COVID-19 and the Law”. The journal is interesting for academics and practitioners alike, since it publishes papers on specific COVID-19 related issues, as well as an extensive overview of German judgements.

An open access project by intersentia examines the COVID-19 legislation and its consequences in European states, bringing together contributions from over 85 highly regarded academics and practitioners in one coherent, open access resource.

Matthias Lehmann discusses the role of private international law on a number of issues – the impact of travel restrictions on transportation contracts, contract law issues for canceled events, canceled or delayed deliveries, but also liability for infections.

Online Workshops, Webinars and Conferences

In time of travel restrictions and social distancing the academic exchange is still active and sometimes more diverse than bevor, since people from all around the world come together, as the great number of workshops and symposiums that are held online shows.

Mid November (17 to 19), the Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law discusses during its XLIV seminar among other topics the impacts of the pandemic on international family as well as aspects surrounding vaccines. participants will discuss in Spanish and the online participation is free of charge.

Contrary to the regular sessions of The Hague Academy of International Law’s Centre for Studies and Research, the upcoming edition is entirely online. The topic will be “Epidemics and International Law” and held from September 2020 to June 2021. The collective works will be published later by the Academy. You will find application and programme here.

The Minerva Center for Human Rights at Tel Aviv University hosted an international socio-legal (zoom-) workshop on 22-23 June 2021 to explore the impact of the Covid-19 crisis and its regulation on cross-border families. A call for papers expired on 28 February 2021.

Another series of events organized by the University of Sydney’s Centre for Asian and Pacific Law will regularly discuss topics such as social justice, civil rights, trade and investment in light of (post) pandemic developments. Of that series one webinar on the aftermath of the pandemic in the Asia-Pacific region focussed on commercial dispute resolution and issues related to private international law.

Marc-Philippe Weller discussed in a workshop on December 1, 2020 about “Nationalism, Territorialism, Unilateralism: Managing the Pandemic Through Private International Law?” if the measures enacted due to the pandemic may have an effect on the connecting factors in European private international law. He had a particular focus on the determination of habitual residence.

A comparative analysis of reactions in Japan and Germany on COVID-19 in private and public law with scholars from both jurisdictions was the topic of an online conference (mostly in German) on August 2020. Recordings of the presentations are online.

During a live youtube conference on July 23, 2020 Humberto Romero-Muci presented with several others his views on “Migrantes, pandemia y política en el Derecho Internacional Privado”. The video is still online.

A webinar organized by experts from MK Family Law (Washington) and Grotius Chamber (the Hague) discussed pertinent issues relating to international child abduction in times of COVID-19.

Matthias Lehmann presented his views on the application of force majeure certificates and overriding mandatory provisions n international contracts in an online-workshop on “COVID-19 and IPR/IZVR”.

Another webinar was held on “Vulnerability in the Trade and Investment Regimes in the Age of #COVID19”, which is available online, as part of the Symposium on COVID-19 and International Economic Law in the Global South.

The University of New South Wales held a talk on “COVID-19 and the Private International Law” in May, which you find on youtube.

As a follow-up of a webinar on PIL & COVID-19, Inez Lopez and Fabrício Polido give “some initial thoughts and lessons to face in daily life”

A group of Brazilian scholars organized an online symposium on Private International Law & Covid-19. Mobility of People, Commerce and Challenges to the Global Order. The videos are here.

The Organization of American States holds a weekly virtual forum on “Inter-American law in times of pandemic” (every Monday, 11:00 a.m., UTC-5h). One topic of many will be on “New Challenges for Private International Law” (Monday, June 15, 2020).

 

State Liability

Some thoughts are given to compensation suits brought against China for its alleged responsibility in the spread of the virus. One main issue here is whether China can claim sovereign immunity.

In the United States, several suits have been brought in Florida (March 12), Nevada (March 23) and Missouri (April 21) against the Peoples republic of China (PRC), which plaintiffs deem responsible for the uncontrolled spread of the virus, which later caused massive financial damage and human loss in the United States. Not surprisingly officials and scholars in China were extremely critical (see here and here).

But legal scholars, including Chimène Keitner and Stephen L. Carter, also think such suits are bound to fail due to China’s sovereign immunity, as do Sophia Tang and Zhengxin Huo. Hiroyuki Banzai doubts that the actions can succeed since it will be difficult to prove a causal link between the damages and the (in-) actions by the Chinese Gorvernment. Lea Brilmayer suspects that such a claim will fail since it would be unlikely, that a court will assume jurisdiction. The same conclusion is drawn by Angelica Bonfanti and Chimène Keitner after a thorough analysis of the grounds on which a liability of china could be based. An overview and detailed presentation of many class actions and suits filed by states can be found here.

Until now, only very little has happened concerning the American suits. Some suits where (voluntarily) dismissed or tossed. One suit against the PRC for damages amounting to $ 800 billion was ordered to be dismissed by the District Court, since the plaintiff failed to state a claim (James-El v the Peoples Republic of China (M.D.N.C. 2020) WL 3619870). For a general update on the lawsuits against the PRC from January 22, 2021 see here.

In an interview with a German newspaper Tom Ginsburg lays out the legal issues that will be faced, if the claims of state liability are brought in front of a German court. Fabrizio Marrella discusses the Italian perspective on that issue. Brett Joshpe analyzes more generally China’s private and public liability in the domestic and international framework.

A Republican Representative is introducing two House Resolutions urging the US Congress to waive China’s sovereign immunity in this regard; such a waiver has also been proposed by a Washington Post author. The claim has also found support by Fox News.

Interestingly, there is also a reverse suit by state-backed Chinese lawyers against the United States for covering up the pandemic. Guodong Du expects this will likewise be barred by sovereign immunity.

Martins Paparinskis shares the concerns about a successful litigation against foreign states. However, he suggests to change the law of state responsibility fundamentally to be prepared for further international catastrophes such as the current pandemic.

In the UK, the conservative Henry Jackson Society published a report suggesting that China is liable for violating its obligations under the International Health Regulations. The report discusses ten (!) legal avenues towards this goal, most of them in public international law, but also including suits in Chines, UK and US courts (pp 28-30). Sovereign immunity is discussed as a severe but not impenetrable barrier.

 

Contract Law

Both the pandemic itself and the ensuing national regulations impede the fulfilment of contracts. Legal issues ensue. An overview of European international contract law and the implications of COVID-19 is given here and here. Two chapters of the book “La pandemia da COVID-19. Profili di diritto nazionale, dell’Unione Europea ed internazionale” edited by Marco Frigessi di Rattalma are dedicated to jurisdiction and applicable law in contract matters.

The UNIDROIT Secretariat has released a Note on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the COVID-19 health crisis.

Bernard Haftel highlights three different techniques to apply COVID-19 legislation to an international contract: as lex contractus, as lois des police and through consideration within the applicable law.

Gerhard Wagner presents COVID caused defaults under the aforementioned ELI principles.

If a contracting party is unable to perform its contractual obligations, incapacity to perform can be based on force majeure or hardship. Some contributions suggest to apply for force majeure certificates which are offered by most countries, for example by China, Russia. How such a certificate can influence contractual obligations under English and New York Law is shown by Yeseung Jang. The German perspective is given by Philip Reusch and Laura Kleiner. Further the South Korean, French and the Common Law perspective on force majeure have been published. Bruno Ancel compares the French and American approach. The difficulty to implement appropriate force majeure clauses in a contract is shown by Matteo Winkler.

Drawing from recent cases and experiences Franz Kaps analyses the difficulties in the operation within ICC force majeure clauses and suggests how “state-of-the-art force majeure clauses” should be constructed to include an international pandemic.

Victoria Lee, Mark Lehberg, Vinny Sanchez and James Vickery go beyond force majeure implications on contracts in their expert analysis.

William Shaughnessy presents issues which might occur in international construction contracts.

Another crucial aspect is the application of overriding mandatory rules on international contracts. Ennio Piovesani discusses whether Italian decree-laws enacted in view of the pandemic can operate as overriding mandatory rules and whether that would be compatible with EU law. So does Giovanni Zarra on international mandatory rules. Aposotolos Anthimos adds the Greek perspective, Claire Debourg the French to the discussion.

The applicability of self-proclaiming mandatory provisions in Italian law in respect to package travels in general and the Directive (EU) 2015/15 on package travel in particular, is discussed by Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti.

Matthias Lehmann considers more broadly possible private international law issues and responses under European law. José Antonio Briceño Laborí and Maritza Méndez Zambrano add the Venezuelan view.

The crisis hits in particular global value and production chains. Impacts are discussed by Tomaso Ferando, by Markus Uitz and Hemma Parsché and by Anna Beckers, though neither focuses specifically on private international law.

Caterina Benini explains a new Italian mandatory rule providing a minimum standard of protection for employees.

Klaus Peter Berger and Daniel Behn in their historical and comparative study on force majeure and hardship, highlight that such remedies are quite regular to find and fit to distribute the risk emanating from such a crisis evenly.

 

CISG

The CISG has long been of very little importance in international contract law but now is subject to many discussions. André Janssen and Johannes Wahnschaffe dedicate a detailed analysis to exemptions from liability and cases of hardship under the CISG.

Performance on advance purchase agreements on delivering the COVID-19 vaccines, have been a major political debate recently. While asking which law is applicable on such contracts Ben Köhler and Till Maier-Lohmann suspect, that if CISG is in fact the applicable law, the consequences would be far reaching and could be the very first time the CISG enters the “global centre stage”. Unfortunately, a Belgian court deciding over a claim by the EU against AstraZeneca for the delivery of doses of vaccines, did not even consider the application of the CISG.

 

Corporate Law

If the questions of purchasing COVID-19 vaccines shifts to buying the entire company the issue at hand becomes more political. Arndt Scheffler analyses the situation in which a foreign investor tries to purchase a company, which is crucial for the domestic battle against the pandemic and the search for a vaccine.

 

Employment Law

Closed borders and practically everybody working from has its impact on employment law.

In export-oriented economies such as Germany, it is very common, that employees are posted abroad on a long-term basis. COVID-19 legislation shapes and influences the legal relation between employer and employee, but also between employee and host-country. Roland Falder and Constantin Franke-Fahle discuss these influences with particular attention to the question of the applicable law here.

 

Tort Law

Damages caused by an infection are mostly subject to tort law but can also arise in a contractual relation. Focusing on the applicable law on non-contractual liability Rolf Wagner explains, that sometimes damages can be claimed both, as contractual and as non-contractual. He stresses that as the substantive law on damages caused by an infection is still to evolve, applying foreign law is a particular challenge.

An extensive overview about the law applicable to damages caused by an COVID-19 infection under Indian international tort law is given by Niharika Kuchhal, Kashish Jaitley and Saloni Khanderia. Khanderia published a second article, concerning the need of a codification of Indian conflict of laws on tort in respect of a foreseeable surge in international tort proceedings, caused by the pandemic.

General implications of the coronavirus on product liability and a possible duty to warn costumers, without specific reverence to conflict of laws.

In Austria, a consumer protection association is considering mass litigation against the Federal State of Tyrolia and local tourist businesses based on their inaction in view of the spreading virus in tourist places like Ischgl. A questionnaire is opened for European citizens. Matthias Weller reports.

Florian Heindler discusses how legal measures to battle the virus could be applicable to a relevant tort case (either as local data or by special connection), by analyzing the hypothetical case of a tourist who gets infected in Austria.

Jos Hoevenars and Xandra Kramer discuss the potential of similar actions in the Netherlands under the 2005 Collective Settlement Act, WCAM.

 

Family Law

Implications also exist in family law, for example regarding the Hague Abduction Convention.

In an Ontario case (Onuoha v Onuoha 2020 ONSC 1815), concerning children taken from Nigeria to Ontario, the father sought to have the matter dealt with on an urgent basis, although regular court operations were suspended due to Covid-19. The court declined, suggesting this was “not the time” to hear such a motion, and in any way international travel was not in the best interest of the child. For the discussion see here.

Further sspects of travel restrictions in international abduction cases are analysed by Gemme Pérez.

A general overview of abduction in times of corona was published by Nadia Rusinova. Another article by Nadia by her covers recent case law and legislation on remote child related proceedings which were conducted during the last weeks around the world. She also highlights, that COVID-19 measures can impact Article 8 ECHR.

Also cases of international surrogacy come into mind which are affected by COVID-19, as Mariana Iglesias shows.

 

Personal Data

The protection of personal data in transnational environments has always been a controversial topic in conflict of laws. Jie Huang shows, that due to COVID-19 existing tensions between the EU, the USA and China are reflected in their conflict of laws approach.

The European Commission published a “toolbox for the use of technology and data to combat and exit from the COVID-19 crisis”, which was an opportunity for some contributions on the GDPR and Tracing Apps.

 

Economic Law

The crisis puts stress on global trade and therefore also economic law. Sophie Hunter discusses developments in the competition laws of various countries (though with no explicit focus on conflict of laws issues).

A list of authors from around the world analyses the interrelation between “Competition law and health crises” in its international context in the current issue Concurrences.

 

Intellectual Property

Due to lockdowns and school closures, online work and teaching has exorbitantly increased but, as Marketa Trimble stresses, with little notion of transnational copyright issues.

To tackle those a prominently endorsed letter to the World Intellectual Property Organization, emphasizes the need to ensure that intellectual property regimes should support the efforts against the Coronavirus and should not be a hindrance.

 

Public Certification

In times of lockdown and closed borders notarization and public certification become almost impossible. Therefore, various countries have adjusted their legislation. You will find an overview here.

The electronic Apostille Program (e-APP)experiences a new popularity, as a considerable number of countries have implemented new components of the e-APP. For more information see here.

 

Dispute Resolution

In Dispute resolution two main questions are being discussed.

On the one hand the question of jurisdiction as such, for example for claims suffered within contractual or non-contractual relationships. Rolf Wagner gives the European and German perspective presenting the possible courts of jurisdiction under Brussel I Regulation (recast), the Lugano Convention and the German code of civil procedure.

In a recent case by the Supreme Court of Queensland (AUS), the court examined the impact of COVID-19 on a foreign jurisdiction clause. You can find Jie Huang’s comments on the decision here.

One the other hand, it is being discussed to what extend the requirement of physical presence in courts can conform with social distancing and travel restrictions. As a more drastic reaction some courts suspended their activities except for urgent matters all together. Developments in Italy are discussed here, developments in English law here.

On the other hand, another possibility is the move to greater digitalization, as discussed comparatively by Emma van Gelder, Xandra Kramer and Erlis Themeli. The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) published a Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the 1970 Evidence Convention, discussed also with reference to Corona by Mayela Celis.

Using the pandemic, Gisela Rühl analyses why the potential of digitalization is so scarcely used in civil procedure and how it can be improved to serve the needs of a digital society.

Benedikt Windau analyses the German civil procedure and how international digital heraings could be possible within the existing law.

In litigation, virtual hearings become a prominent measure to overcame restrictions on physical presence. While in on some jurisdiction such hearings are possible, Luigi Malferrari discusses the question if such hearings should also be enabled before the CJEU.

Maxi Scherer takes the crisis as an opportunity to analyse virtual hearings in international arbitration. Complications and long-term effects of virtual arbitration are presented here. Mirèze Philippe however sees this development as a positive game changer not just in health aspect but also to protect the environment and saving time as well as travelling costs (further articles covering international arbitration and virtual hearings: here and here).

A very broad presentation of legislation in France, Italy and Germany in civil procedure, including cross border service and taking of evidence as well as its implications on international child abduction and protection, is given by Giovanni Chiapponi.

Jie Huang examines the case of substitute service under the Hague Service Convention during the pandemic in the case Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc ([2020] FCA 531).

A US project guided by Richard Suskind collects cases of so-called “remote courts” worldwide.

The EU gives information about the “impact of the COVID-19 virus on the justice field” concerning various means of dispute resolution.

Gilberto A. Guerrero-Rocca analyses the impacts of COVID-19 on international arbitration in relation to the CISG.

 

Bibliography

General and Workshops

Blavantik School of Government, Coronavirus Government Response Tracker, https://www.bsg.ox.ac.uk/research/research-projects/coronavirus-government-response-tracker

Direito Internacional Privado & Covid19, Mobilidade de Pessoas, Comércio e Desafios da Ordem Global, Webinar 11-22 May 2020, https://www.sympla.com.br/webinar-direito-internacional-privado-e-covid-19__848906

Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), HCCH Covid-19 Toolkit, 04 May 2020, https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=731

Matthias Lehmann, Corona Virus and Applicable Law, EAPIL Blog, 16 March 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/03/16/corona-virus-and-applicable-law/

Inez Lopes, Fabrício Polido, Private International Law and the outbreak of Covid-19: Some initial thoughts and lessons to face in daily life, CoL Blog, 10 June 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/webinar-report-private-international-law-and-the-outbreak-of-covid-19-some-initial-thoughts-and-lessons-to-face-in-daily-life/

Secretariat for Legal Affairs, Organization of American States: Inter-American law in times of pandemic, Weekly virtual forum 11 May – 06 July 2020, http://www.oas.org/en/sla/virtual_forum.asp

Società italiana di Diritto internazionale e di Diritto dell’Unione europea, Forum “Covid-19, Diritto Internatzionale e Diritto dell’Unione Europea”, SIDIBlog, 24 March 2020, http://www.sidiblog.org/2020/03/24/forum-covid-19-diritto-internazionale-e-diritto-dellunione-europea/

State Liability

Hiroyuki Akiyama, US lawsuits seek to pin coronavirus blame on China: Allegations of negligence raise legal questions about responsibility, Nikkei Asian Review, 01 April 2020, https://asia.nikkei.com/Spotlight/Coronavirus/US-lawsuits-seek-to-pin-coronavirus-blame-on-China

Shira Anderson, Sean Mirski, An Update on the Coronavirus-Related Lawsuits Against China, Lawfareblog.com, 22 January 2021, https://www.lawfareblog.com/update-coronavirus-related-lawsuits-against-china-0

Angelica Bonfanti, La Cina è immune al COVID-19? Riflessioni sulle cause di risarcimento contro la Cina per i danni causati dalla pandemia negli Stati Uniti, SIDIBlog, 25 June 2020, http://www.sidiblog.org/2020/06/25/la-cina-e-immune-al-covid-19-riflessioni-sulle-cause-di-risarcimento-contro-la-cina-per-i-danni-causati-dalla-pandemia-negli-stati-uniti/

Stephen L. Carter, No, China Can’t Be Sued Over Coronavirus: Nation-states are immune from such lawsuits, Bloomberg Opinion, 24 March 2020, https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2020-03-24/can-china-be-sued-over-the-coronavirus

C.D. Davidsmeyer, Strip China’s Sovereign Immunity and Sue for Damages Caused by Coronavirus, 03 April 2020, https://cddavidsmeyer.org/latest-news/

Guodong Du, Meng Yu, A Wuhan Lawyer Suing the U.S. Government Over COVID-19? In China, Legal Impediments May Surface, China Justice Observer, March 25 2020, https://www.chinajusticeobserver.com/a/a-wuhan-lawyer-suing-the-us-government-over-covid-19

Georg Fahrion, Reparationen für Coronavirus: “Soll China dem Rest der Welt einen Scheck über zehn Billionen Dollar ausstellen?”, SPIEGEL Online, 05 May 2020, https://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/corona-donald-trump-forder-entschaedigung-von-china-ohne-aussicht-auf-erfolg-a-5c6b7517-0ab6-4a14-b1a2-7f77b4c5b18a

Matthew Hernderson, Alan Mendoza, Andrew Foxall, James Rogers and Sam Armstrong, Coronavirus Compensation? Assessing China’s potential culpability and avenues of legal response, The Henry Jackson Society, April 2020, https://henryjacksonsociety.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/04/Coronavirus-Compensation.pdf

Brett Joshpe, Considering Domestic and International Frameworks for Analyzing China’s Potential Legal Liability in the Aftermath of COVID-19, SSRN 13 May 2020, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3598614

Chimène Keitner, To Litigate a Pandemic: Cases in the United States Against China and the Chinese Communist Party and Foreign Sovereign Immunities, 19 Chinese Journal of International Law 2020, 229-239, https://academic.oup.com/chinesejil/article/19/2/229/5890051

Chimène Keitner, Don’t Bother Suing China for Coronavirus, Just Security, 31 March 2020, https://www.justsecurity.org/69460/dont-bother-suing-china-for-coronavirus/

José Antonio Briceño Laborí, Maritza Méndez Zambrano, El Derecho Internacional Privado ante el COVID-19, Derecho y Sociedad Blog, March 2020, http://www.derysoc.com/especial-nro-3/el-derecho-internacional-privado-ante-el-covid-19/

Matthias Lehmann, Corona Virus and Applicable Law, EAPIL Blog, 16 March 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/03/16/corona-virus-and-applicable-law/

Fabrizio Marrella, La Cina deve risarcire i danni transnazionali da Covid-19? Orizzonti ad oriente, SIDIBlog, 17 May 2020, http://www.sidiblog.org/2020/05/17/la-cina-deve-risarcire-i-danni-transnazionali-da-covid-19-orizzonti-ad-oriente/

Hollie McKay, How China can be held legally accountable for coronavirus pandemic, Fox News Channel, 20 March 2020, https://www.foxnews.com/world/china-legally-accountable-coronavirus

Sean A. Mirski, Shira Anderson, What’s in the Many Coronavirus-Related Lawsuits Against China?, Lawfare-Blog, 24 June 2020, https://www.lawfareblog.com/whats-many-coronavirus-related-lawsuits-against-china

Frank Morris, The Coronavirus Crisis: Missouri Sues China, Communist Party Over The Coronavirus Pandemic, National Public Radio, 21 April 2020, https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/04/21/840550059/missouri-sues-china-communist-party-over-the-coronavirus-pandemic?t=1587575581629&t=1589901982561

Martins Paparinskis, The Once and Future Law of State Responsibility, 114 American Journal of International Law2020, 618-626, https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-journal-of-international-law/article/once-and-future-law-of-state-responsibility/9FC5FFFF27E3F7476D742B17146324D0

Missouri Attorney General Eric Schmitt, Missouri Attorney General Schmitt Files Lawsuit Against Chinese Government, 21 April 2020, https://ago.mo.gov/home/news/2020/04/21/missouri-attorney-general-schmitt-files-lawsuit-against-chinese-government

Zhong Sheng, U.S. practice to claim compensation for COVID-19 outbreak a shame for human civilization, People’s Daily Online, 03 May 2020, http://en.people.cn/n3/2020/0503/c90000-9686646.html

Zheng Sophia Tang and Zhengxin Huo, State immunity in global COVID-19 pandemic: Alters, et. al. v People’s Republic of China, et. al., CoL Blog, 21 March 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/state-immunity-in-global-covid-19-pandemic/

Marc A. Thiessen, China should be legally liable for the pandemic damage it has done, The Washington Post, 09 April 2020, https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2020/04/09/china-should-be-legally-liable-pandemic-damage-it-has-done/

Xinhua, Commentary: Suing China for pandemic damage is nothing but political pandering, edited by Huaxia, Xinhua News, 03 April 2020, http://www.xinhuanet.com/english/2020-04/30/c_139021210.htm

Ng Yik-tung, Ho Shan, Sing Man and Qiao Long, Chinese Lawyers Sue U.S. Over ‘Coronavirus Cover-up’, edited by Luisetta Mudie, Radio Free Asia, 26 March 2020, https://www.rfa.org/english/news/china/wuhan-lawsuit-03262020122653.html

Contract Law

Bruno Ancel, Les contrats français et américains face au Covid – 19: un futur nimbé d’incertitude?, AJ Contrat 2020, 217

Apostolos Anthimos, Covid-19 and overriding mandatory provisions, CoL Blog, 15 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/italian-self-proclaimed-overriding-mandatory-provisions-to-fight-coronavirus/

Anna Beckers, Towards Consti­tutionalizing Global Value Chains and Corporations: The State of Exception and Private Law, Verfassungsblog, 08 April 2020, https://verfassungsblog.de/towards-constitutionalizing-global-value-chains-and-corporations/

Caterina Benini, The COVID-19 Crisis and Employment Contracts: the Italian Emergency Legislation on Dismissals, EAPIL Blog, 11 May 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/05/11/the-covid-19-crisis-and-employment-contracts-the-italian-emergency-legislation-on-dismissals/

Klaus Peter Berger, Daniel Behn, Force Majeure and Hardship in the Age of Corona: A Historical and Comparative Study, McGill Journal of Dispute Resolution, Forthcoming, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3575869

Claire Debourg, Covid-19 | Lois de police et ordonnances 2020, GIDE 7 May 2020, https://www.gide.com/fr/actualites/covid-19-lois-de-police-et-ordonnances-2020

Tomaso Ferando, Law and Global Value Chains at the Time of Covid-19: A Systemic Approach Beyond Contracts and Tort, EAPIL Blog, 20 March 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/03/20/law-and-global-value-chains-at-the-time-of-covid-19-a-systemic-approach-beyond-contracts-and-tort/

Claudia Galvis, Jose Moran and James O Brien, Coronavirus Outbreak: Global Guide to Force Majeure and International Commercial Contracts, Global Compliance News UG, 19 March 2020, https://globalcompliancenews.com/coronavirus-outbreak-global-guide-to-force-majeure-and-international-commercial-contracts/

Pascel Guiomard, La grippe, les épidémies et la force majeure en dix arrêts, Dalloz actualité, 4 March 2020,  https://www.dalloz-actualite.fr/flash/grippe-epidemies-et-force-majeure-en-dix-arrets#.XyKXqXduKzl

Bernard Haftel, Le Covid-19 et les contracts internationaux, Recueil Dalloz 2020, 1040, Recueil Dalloz | Dalloz

Tony Dongwook Kang, Seong Soo Kim, COVID-19 and Force Majeure in Sales Transactions — South Korea, Bae, Kim & Lee LLC, Law Business Research, 06 March 2020, https://www.lexology.com/librar/detail.aspx?g=d07462e8-7b46-4b20-9b59-9855e3bdaeb5

Franz Kaps, The Second Wave of the COVID-19 Pandemic and Force Majeure, CoL Blog, 11 December 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/the-second-wave-of-the-covid-19-pandemic-and-force-majeure/

José Antonio Briceño Laborí, Maritza Méndez Zambrano, El Derecho Internacional Privado ante el COVID-19, Derecho y Sociedad, March 2020, http://www.derysoc.com/especial-nro-3/el-derecho-internacional-privado-ante-el-covid-19/

Victoria Lee, Mark Lehberg, Vinny Sanchez and James Vickery, Expert Analysis: COVID-19 Contract Issues Reach Beyond Force Majeure, Law360, 13 March 2020, https://www.law360.com/articles/1251749/covid-19-contract-issues-reach-beyond-force-majeure

Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti, Le disposizioni adottate per fronteggiare l’emergenza coronavirus come norme di applicazione necessaria, in: Calzolaio, Ermanno/Maccarelli, Massimo/Pollastrelli, Stefano (eds.), Il diritto nella pandemia, 2020, pp. 235-256, http://eum.unimc.it/img/cms/Full%20text_Il%20diritto%20nella%20pandemia_a%20cura%20di_Calzolaio_Meccarelli_Pollastrelli.pdf

Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Medidas de emergencia y contratos internacionales, personal Blog, 27 April 2020, http://pedrodemiguelasensio.blogspot.com/2020/04/medidas-de-emergencia-y-contratos.html

Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Contratación internacional y COVID-19: primeras reflexiones, Personal Blog, 19 March 2020, http://pedrodemiguelasensio.blogspot.com/2020/03/contratacion-internacional-y-covid-19.html

Ekaterina Pannebakker, ‘Force majeure certificates’ issued by the Russian Chamber of Commerce and Industry, CoL Blog, 17 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/force-majeure-certificates-by-the-russian-chamber-of-commerce-and-industry/

Ennio Piovesani: Italian Self-Proclaimed Overriding Mandatory Provisions to Fight Coronavirus, CoL Blog, 19 March 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/italian-self-proclaimed-overriding-mandatory-provisions-to-fight-coronavirus/

Philip Reusch, Laura Klein, Distribution of risk in connection with coronavirus-related trade disruptions, Reuschlaw Legal Consultants, 2020, https://www.reuschlaw.de/en/news/distribution-of-risk-in-connection-with-coronavirus-related-trade-disruptions/

William J. Shaughnessy, William E. Underwood, Chris Cazenave, COVID-19’s Impact on Construction: Is There a Remedy? — Time Extension, Force Majeure, or More?, The National Law Review, 03 April 2020, https://www.natlawreview.com/article/covid-19-s-impact-construction-there-remedy-time-extension-force-majeure-or-more

Sophia Tang, Coronavirus, force majeure certificate and private international law, Coronavirus outbreak and force majeure certificate, CoL Blog, 01 March 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/coronavirus-force-majeure-certificate-and-private-international-law/

Markus Uitz, Hemma Parsché, Coronavirus – ein Praxisleitfaden bei Unterbrechung internationaler Lieferketten, Ecolex 273, no. 4, p. 273, 04 April 2020, https://rdb.manz.at/document/rdb.tso.LIecolex20200406

UNIDROIT Secretariat, Note on the UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts and the COVID-19 health crisis, https://www.unidroit.org/89-news-and-events/2886-unidroit-releases-secretariat-note-on-the-unidroit-principles-of-international-commercial-contracts-and-covid-19

Gerhard Wagner, Corona Law, ZEuP 2020, 531, https://beck-online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fzeup%2F2020%2Fcont%2Fzeup.2020.531.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-ZEUP-B-2020-S-531-N-1

Anton A. Ware, Jeffrey Yang, Yingxi Fu-Tomlinson, Timothy C. Smyth, What to Do When You Receive a Coronavirus-Related Force Majeure Notice, Coronavirus: Multipractice Advisory, Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer LLP, 04 March 2020, https://www.arnoldporter.com/en/perspectives/publications/2020/03/what-to-do-when-you-receive-a-coronavirus

Matteo Winkler, Practical Remarks on the Assessment of COVID-19 as Force Majeure in International Contracts, SIDIBlog, 06 May 2020, http://www.sidiblog.org/2020/05/06/practical-remarks-on-the-assessment-of-covid-19-as-force-majeure-in-international-contracts/

Giovanni Zarra, Alla riscoperta delle norme di applicazione necessaria Brevi note sull’art. 28, co. 8, del DL 9/2020 in tema di emergenza COVID-19, SIDIBlog, 30 March 2020, http://www.sidiblog.org/2020/03/30/alla-riscoperta-delle-norme-di-applicazione-necessaria-brevi-note-sullart-28-co-8-del-dl-92020-in-tema-di-emergenza-covid-19/

CISG

André Janssen, Christian J. Wahnschaffe, Der internationale Warenkauf in Zeiten der Pandemie, EuZW 2020, 410-416, https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata/zeits/EUZW/2020/cont/EUZW.2020.410.1.htm

Ben Köhler, Global sales law in a global pandemic: The CISG as the applicable law to the EU-AstraZeneca Advance Purchase Agreement?, CoL Blog, 05 February 2021, https://conflictoflaws.net/2021/global-sales-law-in-a-global-pandemic-the-cisg-as-the-applicable-law-to-the-eu-astrazeneca-advance-purchase-agreement/

Till Maier-Lohmann, EU-AstraZeneca contract – applicability of the CISG?, CISG-Online, 01 February 2021, https://cisg-online.org/Home/international-sales-law-news/eu-astrazeneca-contract-applicability-of-the-cisg

Till Maier-Lohmann, EU v. AstraZeneca – both sides win but no side sides with the CISG?, CISG-online, 23 June 2021, https://cisg-online.org/Home/international-sales-law-news/eu-v.-astrazeneca-both-sides-win-but-no-side-sides-with-the-cisg

Corporate Law

Arndt Scheffler, Freundschaft, Meistbegünstigung und COVID-19-Impfstoff, RIW 2020, 499-506, https://online.ruw.de/suche/riw/Freundschaf-Meistbeguenstigun-un-COVI-1-Impfstof-ef50e2d3f3395df3ecf99c34a007fc68

Employment Law

Roland Falder, Constantin Frank-Fahler, Entsandte Arbeitnehmer im Niemandsland – Die Corona-Krise und ihre Auswirkungen auf die Auslandstätigkeit (am Beispiel der Vereinigten Arabischen Emirate), COVuR 2020, 184- 189, https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata/zeits/COVUR/2020/cont/COVUR.2020.184.1.htm

Tort Law

Florian Heindler, Schadenersatz mit Auslandsberührung wegen COVID-19 ZAK 2020/237 https://lesen.lexisnexis.at/_/schadenersatz-mit-auslandsberuehrung-wegen-covid-19/artikel/zak/2020/8/Zak_2020_08_237.html

Jos Hoevenaars and Xandra Kramer: Mass Litigation in Times of Corona and Developments in the Netherlands, CoL Blog, 22 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/mass-litigation-in-times-of-corona-and-developments-in-the-netherlands/

Saloni Khanderia, Kashish Jaitley, Niharika Kuchhal, The COVID pandemic: Time to ‘ramp-up’ India’s conflict of law rules in matters of tort?, CoL Blog, 14 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/the-covid-pandemic-time-to-ramp-up-indias-conflict-of-law-rules-in-matters-of-tort-by-kashish-jaitley-niharika-kuchhal-and-saloni-khanderia/

Saloni Khanderia, Identifying the applicable law in cross-border disputes on injuries caused by the covid-19 in India: a critical analysis, Commonwealth Law Bulletin, 09 March 2021, https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03050718.2021.1894957

Schnader Harrison Segal & Lewis LLP, Product Liability and Tort Law Implications of the COVID-19 Crisis, JD Supra, 02 April 2020, https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/product-liability-and-tort-law-94866/

Verein zum Schutz von Verbraucherinteressen (Verbraucherschutzverein), Class Action: Corona-Virus-Tyrol questionnaire, 2020, https://www.umfrageonline.com/s/f1fb254

Verein zum Schutz von Verbraucherinteressen (Verbraucherschutzverein), Sammelaktion Corona-Virus-Tirol, 2020, https://www.verbraucherschutzverein.at/Corona-Virus-Tirol/

Rolf Wagner, Anwendbares Recht für zivilrechtliche Schadensersatzansprüche aufgrund von Virusinfektionen, COVuR 2020, 738-743, https://beck-online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fcovur%2F2020%2Fcont%2Fcovur.2020.738.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-COVUR-B-2020-S-738-N-1

Matthias Weller, Cross-border Corona mass litigation against the Austrian Federal State of Tyrol and local tourist businesses?, CoL Blog, 02 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/cross-border-corona-mass-litigation-against-the-austrian-federal-state-of-tyrol-and-local-tourist-businesses/

Family Law

Pamela Cross, Recent case: Hague Convention case under COVID-19 court protocols, Luke’s Place, 31 March 2020, https://lukesplace.ca/case-law-hague-convention-case-under-covid-19-court-protocols/

Mariana Iglesias, Un tema polémico: La espera de los bebés que nacieron en Ucrania durante la cuarentena reaviva el debate por el alquiler de vientres, Calrín, 06. June 2020, https://www.clarin.com/sociedad/espera-bebes-nacieron-ucrania-cuarentena-reaviva-debate-alquiler-vientres_0_932tbfYvo.html

Gemma Pérez, ¿Puede el COVID-19 tener efectos en materia de sustracción internacional de menores?, Diario Jurídico, 27 April 2020, https://www.diariojuridico.com/puede-el-covid-19-tener-efectos-en-materia-de-sustraccion-internacional-de-menores/

MK Family Law (Washington), Grotius Chambers (The Hague), COVID-19 and International Child Abduction: Pertinent Issues, CoL Blog, Webinar 08 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/webinar-on-covid-19-and-international-child-abduction/

Nadia Rusinova, COVID-19 and the Right to Respect for Family Life under Article 8 ECHR, EAPIL Blog, 1 June 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/06/01/the-interplay-between-covid-19-and-the-right-to-respect-for-family-life-under-article-8-echr/

Nadia Rusinova, Child abduction in times of corona, CoL Blog, 16 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/child-abduction-in-times-of-corona/

Nadia Rusinova, Remote Child-Related Proceedings in Times of Pandemic – Crisis Measures or Justice Reform Trigger?, CoL Blog, 30 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/remote-child-related-proceedings-in-times-of-pandemic-crisis-measures-or-justice-reform-trigger/

Personal Data

Stergios Aidinlis, The EU GDPR in Times of Crisis: COVID-19 and the Noble Dream of Europeanisation, EuCML 2020, 151-165, https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata%2fzeits%2fEUCML%2f2020%2fcont%2fEUCML%2e2020%2e151%2e1%2ehtm

Jie (Jeanne) Huang, COVID-19 and Applicable Law to Transnational Personal Data: Trends and Dynamics, Sydney Law School Research Paper No. 20/23, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3570178

Claudia Sandei, Tracing Apps, Digital Health and Consumer Protection, EuCML 2020, 156-161, https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata%2fzeits%2fEUCML%2f2020%2fcont%2fEUCML%2e2020%2e156%2e1%2ehtm#FNA19

Economic Law

Sophie Hunter, Competition Law and COVID 19, CoL Blog 09 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/competition-law-and-covid-19/

Frédéric Jenny et. al., Competition law and health crisis, Concurrences 2020, 24, https://www.concurrences.com/en/review/issues/no-2-2020/on-topic/competition-law-and-health-crisis-en

Intellectual Property

Marketa Trimble, COVID-19 and Transnational Issues in Copyright and Related Rights, IIC – International Review of Intellectual Property and Competition Law 51 (2020), 40.

Public Certification

Ralf Michaels, Notarization from abroad in times of travel restrictions, CoL Blog 22 May 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/notarization-from-abroad/

Dispute Resolution

Giovanni Chiapponi, Judicial cooperation and coronavirus: the law must go on, Judicium, 23 May 2020, http://www.judicium.it/judicial-cooperation-and-coronavirus-the-law-must-go/

Giovanni Chiapponi, The Impact of Corona Virus on the Management of Judicial Proceedings in Italy, EAPIL Blog, 13 March 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/03/13/the-impact-of-corona-virus-on-the-management-of-judicial-proceedings-in-italy/

Mayela Celis, Useful reading in times of corona and just released: The Guide to Good Practice on the Use of Video-Link under the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention, CoL Blog, 17 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/useful-reading-in-times-of-corona-and-just-released-the-guide-to-good-practice-on-the-use-of-video-link-under-the-hcch-1970-evidence-convention/

European Union, Impact of the COVID-19 virus on the justice field, The European e-Justice Portal, 2020, https://e-justice.europa.eu/content_impact_of_the_covid19_virus_on_the_justice_field-37147-en.do

Emma van Gelder, Xandra Kramer and Erlis Themeli, Access to justice in times of corona, CoL Blog, 07 April 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/access-to-justice-in-times-of-corona/

Gilberto A. Guerrero-Rocca, Arbitraje internacional al ‘rescate’ de la CISG en tiempos del COVID-19, CIAR Global, 21 April 2020, https://ciarglobal.com/arbitraje-internacional-al-rescate-de-la-cisg-en-tiempos-del-covid-19/

Horacio Grigera Naón, Björn Arp, Virtual Arbitration in Viral Times: The Impact of Covid-19 on the Practice of International Commercial Arbitration, https://www.wcl.american.edu/impact/initiatives-programs/international/news/covid-19/virtual-arbitration-in-viral-times-the-impact-of-covid-19-on-the-practice-of-international-commercial-arbitration/

Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), Guide on Use of Video-Link under Evidence Convention, 16 April 2020, https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=728

Jie (Jeanne) Huang, RCD Holdings Ltd v LT Game International (Australia) Ltd: Foreign jurisdiction clauses and COVID-19,CoL Blog, 17 February 2021, https://conflictoflaws.net/2021/rcd-holdings-ltd-v-lt-game-international-australia-ltd-foreign-jurisdiction-clauses-and-covid-19/

Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Australian Information Commission v Facebook Inc: Substituting the Hague Service Convention during the Pandemic?, CoL Blog 11 Juli 2020, https://conflictoflaws.net/2020/australian-information-commission-v-facebook-inc-substituting-the-hague-service-convention-during-the-pandemic/

Alex Lo, Virtual Hearings and Alternative Arbitral Procedures in the COVID-19 Era: Efficiency, Due Process, and Other Considerations, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Special Issue on “COVID-19 and International Dispute Settlement, 2020, 85, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/caaj13&id=&collection=journals&div=8

Luigi Malferrari, Corona-Krise und EuGH: mündliche Verhandlungen aus der Ferne und in Streaming? EuZW 2020, 393-395, https://beck-online.beck.de/?vpath=bibdata%2fzeits%2fEUZW%2f2020%2fcont%2fEUZW%2e2020%2e393%2e1%2ehtm

Aygun Mammadzada, Impact of Coronavirus on English Civil Proceedings: Legislative Measures During Emergency and Potential Outcomes, EAPIL Blog, 13 May 2020, https://eapil.org/2020/05/13/impact-of-coronavirus-on-english-civil-proceedings-legislative-measures-during-emergency-and-potential-outcomes/

Philippe Mirèze, Offline or Online? Virtual Hearings or ODR?’, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 April 2020, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/04/26/offline-or-online-virtual-hearings-or-odr/

Gisela Rühl, Digitale Justiz, oder: Zivilverfahren für das 21. Jahrhundert, JZ 2020, 809-817 https://www.mohrsiebeck.com/artikel/digitale-justiz-oder-zivilverfahren-fuer-das-21-jahrhundert-101628jz-2020-0245?no_cache=1

Maxi Scherer, Remote Hearings in International Arbitration – and What Voltaire Has to Do with It ?, Kluwer Arbitration Blog, 26 May 2020, http://arbitrationblog.kluwerarbitration.com/2020/05/26/remote-hearings-in-international-arbitration-and-what-voltaire-has-to-do-with-it/?doing_wp_cron=1594296650.8850700855255126953125

Mark L. Shope, The International Arbitral Institution Response to COVID-19 and Opportunities for Online Dispute Resolution, Contemporary Asia Arbitration Journal, Special Issue on “COVID-19 and International Dispute Settlement, 2020, 67, https://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/caaj13&id=&collection=journals&div=8

Richard Susskind, Remote Courts Worldwide, Society for Computers and Law, 27 March 2020, https://remotecourts.org/

Rolf Wagner, Internationale und örtliche Zuständigkeit für zivilrechtliche Schadensersatzansprüche aufgrund von Virusinfektionen, COVuR 2020, 566-573, https://beck-online.beck.de/Dokument?vpath=bibdata%2Fzeits%2Fcovur%2F2020%2Fcont%2Fcovur.2020.566.1.htm&anchor=Y-300-Z-COVUR-B-2020-S-566-N-1

Benedikt Windau, Kann der „anderer Ort“ i.S.d. § 128a Abs. 1 ZPO auch im Ausland sein? zpoblog.de, 14 April 2021, https://www.zpoblog.de/videokonferenz-verhandlung-grenzueberschreitend-anderer-ort-%C2%A7-128a-zpo-ausland/

The latest issue of the Zeitschrift für Europäisches Privatrecht (ZEuP 2/2019) features a very interesting article by the former president of the Groupe Européen de Droit International Privé (GEDIP), Christian Kohler, on “Comparative Law in Action at the Court of Justice of the European Union – European Conflict of Laws in Theory and Practice” (p. 337). In this autobiographical essay, Kohler traces his professional career from studying at the Free University of Berlin under the supervision of his academic teacher, the legendary Wilhelm Wengler, to becoming General Director at the European Court of Justice while also being part of European academia as an honorary professor for private international law, European civil procedural law and comparative law at the University of Saarbrücken. In particular, Kohler elucidates the practical working of the CJEU and the very important role that comparative legal research plays in preparing the Court’s rulings. Although, seen from the outside, the influence of comparative considerations is frequently not discernible in the Court’s decisions themselves – which, following the French style in this regard, contain neither footnotes nor lengthy doctrinal discussion –, Kohler vividly describes the enormous amount of work that was put into building a world-class legal library in Luxembourg and the intense use that the Advocates General and their scientific staff make of its resources. A fascinating read – highly recommended!

In the editorial of the same issue (p. 249), Alexandre Biard and our fellow conflictoflaws.net co-editor Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam) give a critical comment on “The EU Directive on Representative Actions for Consumers: a Milestone or Another Missed Opportunity?”. This article intends to contribute to ongoing policy discussions at the EU level by pointing out several loopholes in the current Commission’s proposal. After highlighting a few key elements of the proposed representative action, the authors focus on selected issues. They submit that first, in view of the ever-increasing globalisation of goods and services, a revision of European private international law rules is urgently needed for resolving cross-border mass claims. Secondly, they argue that the Commission’s proposal fails to fully consider new actors and new forms of mass litigation that are now emerging, in particular the rise of mass dispute entrepreneurs who are using online platforms and digital tools to structure and to create mass claims. Thirdly, the authors elaborate that the Commission’s proposal leaves several questions relating to the financing of mass litigation still unanswered.

In addition, the issue contains three case-notes on recent important decisions:

Wolfgang Hau (University of Munich) analyses the decision of CJEU in the case C-467/16, ECLI:EU:C:2017:993 ? Brigitte Schlömp ./. Landratsamt Schwäbisch Hall, in which the Court decided that Articles 27 and 30 of the Lugano Convention must be interpreted as meaning that, in the case of lis pendens, the date on which a mandatory conciliation procedure was lodged before a conciliation authority under Swiss law is the date on which a “court” is deemed to be seized (p. 384).

Anton S. Zimmermann (University of Heidelberg) deals with the ruling of the CJEU in the case C-210/16, ECLI:EU:C:2018:388 – Wirtschaftsakademie Schleswig-Holstein GmbH ./. Unabhängiges Landeszentrum für Datenschutz Schleswig-Holstein, in which the Court decided that European data protection rules must be interpreted as meaning that the concept of “controller” within the meaning of those provisions encompasses the administrator of a fan page hosted on a social network. In addition, the Court gave further guidance on the applicability of European data protection rules to international cases (p. 395).

Finally, Kasper Steensgaard (University of Aarhus) comments on a judgment of the Danish Supreme Court of 6 December 2016, case no. 15/2014 (p. 407). In this judgment, the Danish Supreme Court reaffirmed an interpretation of § 2a of the Danish Law on salaried employees (LSE) that the CJEU had found to be precluded by EU law. Whereas the CJEU had instructed the Danish Supreme Court to either change the interpretation or to disapply the provision as barred by the general principle of non-discrimination on grounds of age, the Danish judges found it impossible to change the interpretation, and the majority decided to apply the controversial understanding of § 2a LSE, despite the CJEU’s ruling to the contrary.

For the further content of the same issue of the ZEuP, see last week’s selection of other no less interesting articles here.

The fourth issue of 2013 of the Dutch journal on Private International Law Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht includes two contributions on the Commission Recommendation on Collective Redress and an article on the obligations of parties with regard to pleading and contesting jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation in the Netherlands.

Astrid Stadler, ‘The Commission’s Recommendation on common principles of collective redress and private international law issues’, p. 483-488. The abstract reads:

For its new policy on collective redress the European Commission has chosen the form of a mere ‘Recommendation’ instead of a binding directive or regulation with respect to the violation of (consumer) rights granted under EU law. The Recommendation provides some basic principles on collective redress instruments which should be taken into account by the Member States when implementing injunctive or compensatory collective redress mechanisms. There is, however, no obligation for the Member States to implement such procedural tools. Despite the attempt at establishing common principles, the European legislature thus seems to accept a heterogeneous landscape of collective redress in Europe and has missed the opportunity to provide rules on international jurisdiction, recognition and the applicable law particularly designed for cross-border mass litigation. As a consequence forum shopping becomes even more important for plaintiffs in mass damage cases.

Mick Baart, ‘Implications of Commission Recommendation 2013/39 on common principles for collective redress. Can safeguards limit the potential for abuse without compromising the realization of policy goals?’, p. 489-498. The abstract reads:

The recent publication of Recommendation 2013/39 seeks to establish a common European approach to collective redress. In response to concerns that collective procedures may introduce opportunities for abuse, the European Commission included a number of procedural safeguards. However, can these safeguards limit the potential for abuse without hindering the achievement of policy goals? This article evaluates this question from the perspective of group formation since opt-out procedures have traditionally been perceived as an important factor in abusive practices. The Recommendation accordingly considers the use of opt-in procedures to be an essential safeguard against abuse. Nonetheless, the rejection of opt-out procedures appears to entail an inherent paradox as it reduces the potential for abuse but simultaneously presents significant obstacles to the effectiveness of collective procedures. Moreover, it could have unintended consequences for questions of private international law as Member States that actively use opt-out mechanisms are not obliged to comply with a non-binding Recommendation.

Jacques de Heer, ‘De stelplicht van eiser en gedaagde in geschillen voor de Nederlandse rechter over internationale bevoegdheid op grond van de EEX-Verordening’, p. 499-507. The English abstract reads:

In cross-border contentious proceedings, the plaintiff only has a conditional obligation to show that the court in which proceedings are brought has jurisdiction. This condition follows from Article 24 of the Brussels I Regulation, which deals with jurisdiction through submission to the forum. When the defendant wishes to contest the jurisdiction of the court, he is under no immediate obligation to argue why this is so. However, if the factual arguments put forward by the plaintiff to found the jurisdiction of (for example) the Dutch court remain uncontested, this court has to consider these facts when deciding on its jurisdiction. In so deciding, the court is not bound by the jurisdictional rules of the Brussels I Regulation as mentioned by the defendant. When the defendant only raises a defence of concurrent proceedings in another Member State, he is obliged to immediately state the relevant facts.

The Italian publishing house CEDAM has published a new volume on the review of the Brussels I regulation: “Recasting Brussels I“. The book, edited by Fausto Pocar, Ilaria Viarengo and Francesca Clara Villata (all from the Univ. of Milan) includes twenty-five papers divided into five parts, devoted to the scope of application (I), rules on jurisdiction (II), choice-of-court agreements (III), coordination of proceedings (IV) and recognition and enforcement of judgments (V).

Here’s the table of contents (.pdf file):

PART I – SCOPE OF APPLICATION

• Rainer Hausmann, The Scope of Application of the Brussels I Regulation;
• Ilaria Viarengo, The Removal of Maintenance Obligations from the Scope of Brussels I;
• Claudio Consolo – Marcello Stella, Brussels I Regulation Amendment Proposals and Arbitration;
• Peter Kindler, Torpedo Actions and the Interface between Brussels I and International Commercial Arbitration;
• Stefano Azzali – Michela De Santis, Impact of the Commission’s Proposal to Revise Brussels I Regulation on Arbitration Proceedings Administered by the Chamber of Arbitration of Milan.

PART II – RULES ON JURISDICTION

• Burkhard Hess, The Proposed Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: Rules on Jurisdiction;
• Riccardo Luzzatto, On the Proposed Application of Jurisdictional Criteria of Brussels I Regulation to Non-Domiciled Defendants;
• Fausto Pocar, A Partial Recast: Has the Lugano Convention Been Forgotten?;
• Alexander R. Markus, Harmonisation of the EU Rules of Jurisdiction Regarding Defendants Outside the EU. What About the Lugano Countries?;
• Ruggiero Cafari Panico, Forum necessitatis. Judicial Discretion in the Exercise of Jurisdiction;
• Marco Ricolfi, The Recasting of Brussels I Regulation from an Intellectual Property Lawyer’s Perspective;
• Eva Lein, Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Mass Litigation;
• Zeno Crespi Reghizzi, A New Special Forum for Disputes Concerning Rights in Rem over Movable Assets: Some Remarks on Article 5(3) of the Commission’s Proposal.

PART III – CHOICE-OF-COURT AGREEMENTS

• Ilaria Queirolo, Prorogation of Jurisdiction in the Proposal for a Recast of the Brussels I Regulation;
• Christian Kohler, Agreements Conferring Jurisdiction on Courts of Third States;
• Francesca C. Villata, Choice-of-Court Agreements in Favour of Third States’ Jurisdiction in Light of the Suggestions by Members of the European Parliament.

PART IV – COORDINATION OF PROCEEDINGS

• Luigi Fumagalli, Lis Alibi Pendens. The Rules on Parallel Proceedings in the Reform of the Brussels I Regulation;
• Pietro Franzina, Successive Proceedings over the Same Cause of Action: A Plea for a New Rule on Dismissals for Lack of Jurisdiction;
• Lidia Sandrini, Coordination of Substantive and Interim Proceedings;
• Cristina M. Mariottini, The Proposed Recast of the Brussels I Regulation and Forum Non Conveniens in the European Union Judicial Area.

PART V – RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT OF JUDGMENTS

• Sergio M. Carbone, What About the Recognition of Third States’ Foreign Judgments?;
• Thomas Pfeiffer, Recast of the Brussels I Regulation: The abolition of Exequatur;
• Stefania Bariatti, Recognition and Enforcement in the EU of Judicial Decisions Rendered upon Class Actions: The Case of U.S. and Dutch Judgments and Settlements;
• Manlio Frigo, Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments on Matters Relating to Personality Rights and the Recast Proposal of the Brussels I Regulation;
• Marco De Cristofaro, The Abolition of Exequatur Proceedings: Speeding up the Free Movement of Judgments while Preserving the Rights of the Defense.

– – –

Title: Recasting Brussels I, edited by F. Pocar, I. Viarengo and F.C. Villata, CEDAM (Series: Studi e pubblicazioni della Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale – Volume 76), Padova, 2012, XXIV – 382 pages.

ISBN 9788813314699. Price: EUR 32,50. Available at CEDAM.

(Many thanks to Prof. Francesca Villata for the tip-off)

The British Institute of International and Comparative Law will host a Conference on Extraterritoriality and Collective Redress on November 15th in London.

This event will provide a forum for the debate of latest developments in the area of international mass litigation.
The question of extraterritoriality of national legislation has been extensively discussed by the US Supreme Court in the Morrison case. The US position post Morrison shall be highlighted in comparison with the recent Dutch legislation on collective settlements. The speakers will comment on mass litigation phenomena from a global and a European position. A focus will also lie on the UK viewpoint regarding collective redress. Furthermore, the Brussels I framework and its suitability for cross-border collective claims will be covered as well as problems relating to the recognition of US class actions and of punitive damage judgments. Various experts from the US, UK, the Netherlands and other European countries will meet to discuss the status quo and the way forward from their different perspectives.

Speakers will include:
Professor Diego Corapi, University Rome I – La Sapienza
Thomas A Dubbs, Labaton Sucharow
Dr Duncan Fairgrieve, Director Product Liability Forum, BIICL
Professor Burkhard Hess, University of Heidelberg
Adam Johnson, Partner, Herbert Smith, London
Dr Eva Lein, Herbert Smith Senior Research Fellow, BIICL
Dr Hélène van Lith, University of Rotterdam
Gerard Mc Dermott QC, Outer Temple Chambers
Professor Rachael Mulheron, QM University of London
Dr Francesco Quarta, University of Salento
Pierre Servan-Schreiber, Skadden Arps, Paris.
Professor Linda Silberman, Martin Lipton Professor of Law, NYU
Jonathan Sinclair, Stewarts Law
Vincent Smith, Visiting Fellow, BIICL
John Sorabji, Legal Secretary to the Master of the Rolls
Professor Ianika Tzankova, NautaDutilh; Tilburg University

The event will be held at Herbert Smith London Office, from 2 pm to 6:45 pm, and will be followed by a reception.

More details can be found here.

Written by Jos Hoevenaars (Erasmus University Rotterdam) & Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.

 

On 9 October, the District Court of Amsterdam issued its final judgment in a collective action against energy supplier Vattenfall. This judgment was eagerly awaited as it is the very first judgment in a mass damage claim under the Dutch WAMCA procedure. The new framework for collective redress, which became applicable on 1 January 2020 (see also our earlier blogpost), has received a lot of attention in international scholarship and by European legislators and policy makers due to its many innovations and making it easier for consumers and small businesses to litigate against large companies. The most notable change in the Dutch act compared to the old collective action regime is the possibility to request an award for damages, making such proceedings attractive for commercial litigation funders. A recent report commissioned by the Dutch Ministry of Justice and Security (published in an English book here) found that most collective actions seeking damages brought under the WAMCA have an international dimension, and that all of these claims for damages are brought with the help of third party litigation funding (TPLF).

Since this judgment is the first of its kind under the Dutch WAMCA, with a claim value of 400 million euros, it has gained a lot of (media) attention. This blogpost provides an update on this most recent judgment and discusses its impact on the current mass claims landscape and TPLF in the Netherlands.

 The Case

 The claim of Stichting NUON Claim, the claim foundation (‘the foundation’) established to represent a group of SMEs who are or have been clients of energy company Vattenfall, relates to alleged excessive energy costs imposed on specific customers. The foundation alleged that energy supplier NUON, which has since been acquired by Vattenfall, illegitimately charged a compensation for electrical capacity to its business customers and that no actual service or product was provided in exchange for this so-called kW charge. Furthermore, many other similar customers did not have to pay the kW charge. The foundation alleged that this illegitimate charge resulted in bills that were on average 80% higher than those of competing energy suppliers, in some cases resulting in tens of thousands of euros in excessive annual fees.

In short, the main question in this case is whether Vattenfall (formerly NUON) was allowed to charge business customers a fee based on contracted capacity as an electricity supplier. Vattenfall had charged these costs to business customers with a ‘small bulk consumer connection’ (more than 3 × 80 Ampère) on the electricity grid since the liberalisation of the Dutch electricity market in 2002. These included medium-sized enterprises, small enterprises and non-profit institutions. According to the foundation, Vattenfall was not allowed to charge these costs because there was no service or product in return for the kilowatt (kW) fee charged. The foundation therefore initiated collective proceedings against Vattenfall. The foundation based its claim on Article 6:194 Dutch Civil Code (DCC), which contains a prohibition against acquisition fraud within Dutch private law.

The WAMCA and litigation finance

A first judgment in a mass damage case has been eagerly awaited as it could provide for a pivotal moment in which claimants would be awarded a multimillion euro claim and the commercial funder would reap the benefits of its investment. The WAMCA has sparked continuous debate due to the regime’s perceived claimant-friendly design, its attractiveness for international commercial litigation funders and its alleged risk of fostering an ‘American-style’ claim culture. The opt-out system, few restrictions on third-party funding, and the supposed risk of litigation abuse were the target of criticism by, most notably, the US Chamber of Commerce (see report here). This criticism was met with calls for a more nuanced approach (see earlier blogpost here) and the fears of fostering a claim culture have been dampened by the modest numbers of cases that have been brought under the WAMCA so far.

Among other discussions, the WAMCA has especially gotten attention due to the role played by commercial third party funders. (See our discussion on third party litigation funding and the WAMCA in this earlier blogpost.) In the case against Vattenfall too, there was some debate on the nature of the financing agreement between the claim foundation and international funder Bench Walk Guernsey PCC LTD. In an interim decision rendered in October 2023, the court reviewed such an agreement, which outlined the conditions under which the funder would receive a portion of any proceeds from the case. This included paying for legal costs and taking a share of any damages awarded to the claim foundation. It also detailed situations where additional funding might have been required and the rights of the claim foundation to manage the litigation and settlement discussions?.

The agreement also outlined the treatment of the litigation funder’s fees for different groups of claimants. The claim foundation stated that it would withhold 25% of the compensation from the class members, but in cases where the litigation funder’s agreed percentage (8-12%) was lower, it would not retain the difference. This meant, for example, that in case only 12% was due to the litigation funder, the additional 13% would not have been kept by the claim foundation. This 25% withholding would have only been relevant if the claim foundation could not claim compensation for all class members, limiting its representation to a smaller group. The court concluded that the explanation provided by the claim foundation on the reasonableness of the fees was sufficient. It emphasized that the uncertainty about the final amount of fees was acceptable because it depended on factors like the duration of the proceedings.

The Judgment

In its judgment the District Court of Amsterdam dismisses all claims of Stichting NUON-claim against Vattenfall. It rejects the foundation’s claim that Vattenfall concealed essential information about the kW compensation, since the compensation was easy to calculate based on Vattenfall’s offer. Furthermore, the explanation, which was included in the offer and the energy bills, made the price structure clear. According to the court, the customers were therefore not misled. Vattenfall also made it clear that the grid operator charges an amount for the transport of electricity and that this is not included in the price that Vattenfall charges these customers.

The foundation also stated that Vattenfall abused the inaction of some of its customers after a new annual offer. The court ruled that the kW customers in the liberalised market had the choice of which energy supplier they purchased energy from. They were therefore free to negotiate the contract terms and to switch to another supplier. In this situation, a kW customer cannot complain that they themselves did not do the comparative research, which other customers did do. Vattenfall has not exceeded any other standard of care and there is also no question of undue payment of the kW compensation.

The Amsterdam Court held that businesses ought to have exercised greater caution. It is reasonable to expect that ‘average, observant businesses’ will familiarize themselves with the energy prices on offer and will take the initiative to understand the information provided by suppliers. Additionally, the fact that a free market has been in place since 2002 implies that Vattenfall had no obligation whatsoever to inform its business customers about the existence of other customers with better contract terms and that contracts without the kW charge would probably be cheaper. The customers themselves were responsible for their choice of electricity supplier. The court also finds that it is incorrect to state that no product or service is provided in return for the kW fee. Electricity is provided, and including general cost components, such as personnel costs, in a tariff structure is permissible.

 The Impact

For those expecting this judgment to be the very first case in which a multimillion-euro damage claim would be awarded, and thus opening the door to many more mass damage claims, the result may be somewhat of an anticlimax. Since the claimants have not been successful and no damages have been awarded, the case does not provide much to go on for funders, mass claim lawyers and others following these developments with interest. At the same time, the claim foundation lost the case on substantive grounds, and nothing in the decision suggests an impairment in the WAMCA’s ability to provide access to justice for victims of mass harms.

From our perspective, there are two points that could be worthy of praise from a procedural point of view. The first is that, even after deeming 92% of the claims unfounded under Article 6:194 DCC, the court still refused Vattenfall’s claim that the remaining 8% would be too small of group to justify a ruling in a collective action, prioritizing the uniformity of the defendant’s conduct instead. This favours procedural expediency and guarantees that a minority of class members wouldn’t suffer from an eventual dismissing of the claim against the rest.

The second point is that the court took the perspective of the average user to rule on the sufficiency of the information provided by Vattenfall. This favours the groupability of class members in an abstract fashion, in contrast to the tendency other courts have shown to excessively scrutinize the similarity of the class members’ situations to consider them a group with acceptably similar claims. In a ruling on EU consumer law earlier this year, the CJEU favoured this approach for collective actions in such area (see Case C-450/22 Caixabank).

That said, this judgment shows that the supposed claimant-friendly design of the WAMCA does not guarantee success and may come as a disappointment to claimants and funders alike. Notably as well is the fact that this case took about 2,5 years from summons to judgement, which is a relatively short time for complex class action cases, as illustrated by the timelines of other cases that were filed well before this case and that have still some ways to go before a judgment can be expected.

The question remains how funders will look at this result and if it has any impact on their willingness to keep funding Dutch class actions. Given the outcome of this case, with a negative result for the claimants and a dismissal of all claims on substantive grounds, it seems both funders and ‘WAMCA-watchers’ will have to wait a bit longer for that first pivotal judgment.