Views
Chinese courts made decision taking into account of the Hague Choice of Court Convention
China has signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention on 12 September 2017, but has not yet ratified this Convention. The Hague Choice of Court Convention has not entered into force in China. However, Shanghai High Court has already relied on the Hague Choice of Court Convention to make decision.
In Cathay United Bank v Gao, Shanghai High Court, (2016) Hu Min Xia Zhong No 99, the appellant, a Taiwan commercial bank, and the respondent, a Chinese citizen resident in Shanghai, entered into a Guarantee contract. It included a clause choosing Taiwan court as the competent court to hear disputes arising out of the contract. This clause did not specify whether it was exclusive or not. Chinese law does not provide how to decide exclusivity of a choice of court agreement. Facing the legal gap, Shanghai High Court took into account Article 3 of the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005 and decided that choice of court agreements should be exclusive unless the parties stated otherwise. The Shanghai High Court thus declined jurisdiction in favour of Taiwan Court.
This decision was made on 20 April 2017, even before China signed the Hague Choice of Court Convention. Since the Hague Choice of Court Convention has not entered into force in China, it should not be directly applied by Chinese courts in judicial practice. The question is whether Chinese courts could ‘take into account’ of international conventions not being effective in China to make decision. Although Article 9 of the Chinese Supreme Court’s Judicial Interpretation of Chinese Conflict of Laws Act allows the Chinese courts to apply international conventions, which have not entered into effect in China, to decide the parties’ rights and obligations, such an application is subject to party autonomy. In other words, parties should have chosen the international convention to govern their rights and obligations. Article 9 does not apply to international judicial cooperation conventions that do not deal with individuals’ substantive rights and are not subject to party autonomy. Perhaps, a more relevant provision is Article 142(3) of the PRC General Principle of Civil Law, which provides that international customs or practice may be applied to matters for which neither the law of the PRC nor any international treaty concluded or acceded to by China has any provisions. Arguably, the Hague Choice of Court Convention represents common practice adopted internationally and forms a source to fill the gap in the current Chinese law.
EU Member State sees opportunities in Brexit: Belgium is establishing a new English-language commercial court
Expecting higher demands for international commercial dispute resolution following Britain’s departure from the EU, Belgium plans to set up a new English-language commercial court, the Brussels International Business Court (BIBC), to take cases away from the courts and tribunals in London. This decision was announced on 27 Oct 2017. This BIBC is designed to address disputes arising out of Brexit and major international commercial disputes. The court will take jurisdiction based on parties’ choice, and will do the hearing and deliver judgments in English. The parties would have no right to appeal. BIBC combines elements of both traditional courts and arbitration. See comments here.
Although Brexit may cause uncertainty to litigants in the UK, a survey suggests that the EU judicial cooperation scheme is not the main reason for international parties choosing London to resolve their disputes. The top two factors that attract international litigants to London are the reputation and experience of English judges and combination of choice of court clauses with choice of law clauses in favor of English law, followed by efficient remedies, procedural effectiveness, neutrality of the forum, market practice, English language, effective UK-based counsel, speed and enforceability of judgments. Furthermore, Brexit will not affect the New York Convention and would less likely affect London as an arbitration centre. It may be more reasonable to suggest that the main purpose of BIBC is not to compete with London at the international level, but to offer additional judicial tool and become a new commercial dispute resolution centre within the EU to attract companies and businesses to Brussels.
CJEU on the place of the damage under Article 7(2) of Brussels Ia as regards violation of personality rights of a legal person
First personal impressions presented by Edina Márton, LLM, PhD (Saarbruecken)
For jurisdictional purposes, the localisation of cross-border violations of personality rights under European instruments, such as Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 (Brussels Ia), has attracted the attention of a considerable number of scholars and often led to different legal solutions in the national judicial practice. At EU level, besides Shevill (C-68/93; ECLI:EU:C:1995:61) as well as eDate and Martinez (C-509/09 and C-161/20; ECLI:EU:C:2011:685), since 17 October 2017, a third judgment in case Bolagsupplysningen (C-194/16; ECLI:EU:C:2017:766) has given further clarification in this area. In the recently delivered judgment, the ECJ specified one of the two limbs of the connecting factor “where the harmful event occurred or may occur” under Article 7(2) of Brussels Ia, namely the place of the alleged damage. Read more
News
IEAF Call for Papers: The Perpetual Renewal of European Insolvency Law
The INSOL Europe Academic Forum (IEAF) is inviting submission for its 19th annual conference, taking place from Wednesday 11 – Thursday 12 October 2023 in Amsterdam (the Netherlands). Expressions of interest are invited for the delivery of research papers within the overall theme of the academic conference: “The Perpetual Renewal of European Insolvency Law”.
The conference is intended to focus on, inter alia, the following overall topics:
- Public and social policy and the impact on corporate rescue, and vice versa
- Cross-border issues (recognition, coordination)
- Asset tracing (including crypto assets)
- Competition for cases as a driving force for legislative reform
- International organisations update
- Sustainability and corporate restructuring
- Environmental claims in insolvency
- Transaction avoidance eclipsed in preventive restructuring procedures
- Pre-packs rehabilitated
- Asset partitioning: prudent entrepreneurship or manifestation of opportunism
- Modern issues surrounding directors’ duties to file for insolvency
- The impact and benefit (or not) of creditors’ committees
- EU Preventive Restructuring Directive
The IEAF board also invites submissions on other topics that fall with in the scope of the overall theme of the conference.
Conference methodology
In line with the practice established in our past academic conferences, the intention for the autumn conference is to have research papers that challenge existing approaches, stimulate debate and ask, and attempt to answer, comparative and interdisciplinary questions within the above broadly defined theme. Accordingly, proposals are invited that do more than just outline a topic of interest in respect of any given jurisdiction, but seek to understand, analyse and critique the fundamentals of insolvency and restructuring systems in ways that are relevant across jurisdictions and across fields of academic inquiry. Contributions must be in English.
Presenting at the IEAF conference
Expressions of interest in delivering a paper should be sent by email on or before 1 March 2023 to the IEAF’s Deputy Chair, Dr. Jennifer Gant.
Authors of papers selected for presentation will benefit from a waiver of the participation fee for the academic conference, however, they will be responsible for their own travel and accommodation costs. A limited number of travel grants are available for junior scholars invited to present.
For further information, see: www.insol-europe.org/academic-forum-events
The New Age of Dispute Resolution: Digitization & Evolving Norms
The New Age of Dispute Resolution: Digitization & Evolving Norms
Time: 18:30 – 20:30 pm
Venue: Bracewell LLP New York
When: 13 February Monday 2023
Organized with New York International Arbitration Centre, New York State Bar Association, and American Society of International Law
The event will be held in relation to UNCITRAL’s project on the Stocktaking of Dispute Resolution in the Digital Economy. As part of its stocktaking activities to seek inputs from different parts of the world, the Secretariat is organising this discussion with practitioners and academics in New York on two respective issues: (1) the use of technology in arbitration; and (2) online mediation. Presenters: (Panel 1) Christina Hioureas, Emma Lindsay, Hagit Muriel Elul, Martin Guys and Sherman W. Kahn; (Panel 2) Jackie Nolan-Haley and Sherman W. Kahn.
Sustainable European private international law – the SEPIL perspective
This post was written by Jachin Van Doninck (SEPIL coordinator, Vrije Universiteit Brussels) and Jerca Kramberger Škerl (University of Ljubljana)
It is fair to say that the attention for sustainability and sustainable development has seen a steady increase. The past decade, the United Nations has set out the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), based on the urgent need to shift the world onto a sustainable and resilient path. These SDGs are finding their way into policy making on every level and are also inspiring research in the legal field.[i] Recent scholarship has raised awareness for the potential of private international law to strengthen the SDGs’ plan of action (e.g. the seminal work edited by R. MICHAELS, V. RUIZ ABOU-NIGM and H. VAN LOON, 2021).[ii] Private International Law is also and increasingly being classified as a governance tool[iii] of a political nature.[iv]
The SEPIL network, funded by the EUTOPIA UNIVERSITY alliance explores the sustainability of European private international law as a system, i.e. in itself. Thus, the project’s intention was to move away from existing research on how private international law can be instrumentalized for the purpose of attaining the greater good (e.g. the Shell cases in The Netherlands and in the UK, reported on the conflictoflaws blog), and to question to what extent sustainability can (or must) exert a system-building function within this area of the law. Taking into account that PIL acts as potent tool for achieving the SDGs, the research group delved into the question of the sustainability of this tool in itself, thus ‘operating’ mainly within the SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
SEPIL organised two closed seminars in Ljubljana (29-30 September 2022) and Brussels (24-25 October 2022). The goals of the meetings were threefold:
- to catch up with the state of the art of the research on sustainability and law, both regarding the individual SDGs and the sustainability of law;
- to try to delimitate the question(s) of PIL as a tool to achieve sustainable development and sustainability as a tool to enhance PIL;
- to explore the research potential of the aforementioned SEPIL idea.
The Ljubljana edition was kicked off by Anna Maria Wilmot (VUB), who presented an outline of her current PhD research on the interplay between sustainability and the Belgian system of civil adjudication. She explained how any attempt at a systemic appraisal of the sustainability of European private international law would have to begin with a clear understanding of sustainability as a layered concept. Jachin Van Doninck (also at VUB) connected Anna Maria’s research with the SEPIL project by elaborating on how legal scholarship and the courts are heavily involved in instrumentalizing private international law for the purpose of attaining sustainability and sustainable development. He pointed out that a fundamental analysis of the sustainability of private international law itself is lacking, which is precisely where SEPIL’s research focus would lie. University of Ljubljana’s Jerca Kramberger Škerl continued with an overview of the UN Sustainable Development Goals and a short presentation on how private international law can, first, serve as a tool to attain those goals, and second, adapt itself to respect those goals. In the afternoon, these SDGs were made concrete through topical examples. A first one was offered by University of Gothenburg’s Anna Wallerman Ghavanini through her presentation on judicial protection for victims of discrimination in EU private international law, explaining that effective access to justice (SDG 16) for victims of discrimination (SDG 5) reveals shortcomings in the current private international law framework. Second, University of Ljubljana’s Filip Dougan focused on the interplay between the UN Sustainable Development Goal 5 (Gender Equality) and the EU private international law. Erik Björling, also from the University of Gothenburg, then challenged our thinking with the question “Can retrospective civil procedure be prospective?”. Using notions of procedural legal theory (naming, blaming, claiming, rational discourse, reduction of complexity), he touched on several core issues of private international law such as jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement. The stage had been set for the Brussels edition.