Views
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
Is “la réserve héréditaire” part of French international public policy ?
Through two decisions (Civ. 1ère, 27 sept. 2017, n° 16-17198 et 16-13151) both issued on September 27th, The French Cour de cassation finally gave an answer to one of the most discussed question of French Succession law: Is la réserve héréditaire part of French international public policy?
The circumstances of both cases are very similar. Two French composers living in California, where they had most of their assets, got married respectively in 1984 and 1990. They put their assets in a trust and designated their wives as beneficiaries. In both cases, the settlers did not designate the children they had from previous relationships as beneficiaries of the trust. After the death of their fathers, the latter turned to French courts in order to obtain part of the inheritance. They argued that the Californian law applicable to the succession should be declared contrary to French international public policy for not including a réserve héréditaire for certain heirs.
According to Article 912 §1 of the French Civil Code, la réserve hérédiataire or the reserved portion « is that part of the assets and rights of the succession whose devolution, free of charge, the law assures to certain heirs, called forced heirs, if they are called to the succession and if they accept it ». In other words, under French succession law, a person cannot freely dispose of all of his or her assets. French law set boundaries by putting aside a reserved portion of the deceased’s property. However, he or she can freely dispose of the disposable portion (quotité disponible) which is defined as « that part of the assets and rights of the succession that is not reserved by law and of which the deceased can freely dispose by liberalities » (Article 912 § 2).
Whereas the Court of Cassation ruled that the reserved portion is mandatory in internal matters, the question of its imperative nature in international cases was yet unclear. Authors disagree. While some consider that the réserve héréditaire cannot be considered as such as part of French ordre public international, others consider that due to the fact that it is an expression of solidarity among family members as well as a guarantee of equality between heirs, it has to be part of French international public policy.
The controversy was aggravated in 2011 when the Conseil Constitutionnel condemned le droit de prélèvement for amounting to a discrimination based on nationality. The droit de prélèvement is another specific French mechanism. It allows French heirs that have been deprived of the reserved portion from the assets located abroad to deduct the equivalent of such reserved portion from the part of the deceased’s assets that are located in France. As a consequence of this decision, the reserved portion remained the only protection for heirs from the risk of disinheritance.
However, in both decisions, the Court found that the mere fact that the foreign law does not provide for a mechanism such as the reserved portion does not amount to a violation of French international public policy. The foreign law could nevertheless be disregarded, but only if its concrete application in a specific case leads to a situation that would be incompatible with French essential principles.
Giving the particulars circumstances of the cases, the Court found that in both cases the application of Californian law was not contrary to French public policy. First, the Court outlined that the deceased had lived in California for over thirty years and that most of their assets were located there. As a consequence, both situations were not strongly connected to the French forum. Then, the Court pointed out that the children living in France were adults and that their economic situation will not suffer from their being deprived of the succession.
These observations lead the Court to consider that, in these situations, the Californian law is not contrary to French international public policy even though it does not provide for a reserved portion. The Court emphasis on the particular circumstances of the case, namely that the situation was mainly located in California and that none of the claimants was in need or economically instable, indicates that these circumstances weighed strongly on the outcome. It does not exclude that, in different circumstances, a foreign law that would not provide for a reserved portion could be dismissed as contrary to public policy.
Prior to the coming into force of the Succession Regulation, the solution appears in accordance with its public policy provision. Stating that courts could only refuse to apply provisions that are manifestly incompatible with the forum’s international public policy, Article 35 allows that foreign laws be disregarded when their application could lead to serious consequences. It does not appear to be the case in the present situations.
The new discussed question is now: In which case the application of a foreign law not including a reserved portion could lead to a situation incompatible with French essential principles ?
Freedom of establishment after Polbud: Free transfer of the registered office
Bastian Brunk, research assistant and doctoral student at the Institute for Comparative and Private International Law at the University of Freiburg (Germany), has provided us with the following first thoughts on the CJEU’s groundbreaking Polbud judgment.
The Judgment
In its judgment in Polbud (C-106/16), the CJEU again took the work out of the EU legislature’s hands while further developing the freedom of establishment provided for in Articles 49 and 54 TFEU. The case was heard following a request for a preliminary ruling under Article 267 TFEU by the Sad Najwyzszy (Supreme Court of Poland). In short, the CJEU had to decide on the following questions:
(1) Are Articles 49 and 54 TFEU applicable to a transfer of the registered office of a company incorporated under the law of one Member State to the territory of another Member State with the purpose of converting its legal form, when the company has no intention to change the location of its real head office or to conduct real economic activity in the latter Member State?
(2) Is a national legislation that makes the removal of a company from the commercial register and, accordingly, the out-migration of that company conditional upon its liquidation compatible with the freedom of establishment?
Answering these questions, the CJEU made Polbud, the company at stake, a liberal gift and strengthened the mobility of companies within the European Single Market. First, the CJEU stated that the freedom of establishment applies to the transfer of the registered office of a company from one Member State to another even if no real business is intended to be conducted in the latter Member State. Secondly, the CJEU ruled out national legislation providing for the mandatory liquidation of a company if the company requests the removal from the initial commercial register in cases of outward migration.
The facts
In September 2011, the shareholders of Polbud, a limited liablity company established under Polish law, decided to transfer the company’s registered office from Poland to Luxembourg. The resolution made no reference to a simultaneous transfer of either the real head office or the place of real economic activity. Based on that resolution, the registry court in Poland recorded the opening of the liquidation procedure. In May 2013, following a resolution adopted by a shareholder meeting in Luxembourg, the registered office of Polbud was transferred to Luxembourg. Polbud was renamed to Consoil Geotechnik and its legal form was changed to the Société à responsabilité limitée (S. à r. l.), the Luxembourgish private limited liability company. Subsequently, Polbud lodged an application with the Polish registry court for its removal from the commercial register. This application was refused to be registered because, as the registry court stated, Polbud failed to provide evidence of the successful execution of a liquidation procedure. Polbud appealed against this decision, arguing that no liquidation was needed because the company continued to exist as a legal person incorporated under Luxembourgish law.
The precedents
Articles 49 and 54 TFEU provide for the freedom of establishment. According to the CJEU case-law, the concept of “establishment” within the meaning of these Articles is a very broad one, allowing a Union national to participate, on a stable and continuous basis, in the economic life of another Member State and to profit therefrom (CJEU in Gebhard, C-55/94, para. 25 and Almelo, C-470/04, para. 26). It involves the actual pursuit of an economic activity through a fixed establishment in another Member State for an indefinite period (CJEU in Factortame and Others, C-221/89, para. 20 and Commission v. United Kingdom, C-246/89, para. 21). In order to claim freedom of establishment, it is generally necessary to have secured a permanent presence in the host Member State (CJEU in Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer, C-386/04, para. 19 and Schmelz, C-97/09, para. 38). This case law can, generally speaking, be translated as “no freedom of establishment without establishment”.
On the other hand, the CJEU generously extended the application of Articles 49 and 54 TFEU to letterbox companies without “fixed establishment” and/or “permanent presence” in their home Member State. In Centros (C-212/97) the Court ruled that EU law is applied to the set-up of subsidiaries, branches and agencies in other Member States and, in that regard, it is immaterial that the company was formed in one Member State only for the purpose of establishing itself in another Member State, where its main, or indeed entire, business is to be conducted (Centros, para 17).
The CJEU then used its 2009 Cartesio judgment (C-210/06) as an opportunity to, obiter dictu, set guidelines for cross-border transfers of seat. It stated that, on the one hand, a Member state has the power to define both the connecting factor required of a company if it is to be regarded as incorporated under the law of that Member State and, as such, capable of enjoying the right of establishment, and that required if the company is to be able subsequently to maintain that status (thus treating companies as legal creatures of their country of origin). On the other hand, freedom of establishment comprises the right of a company to move from one Member State to another. If domestic legislation of the Member State of origin requires the liquidation of the company, thereby preventing it from converting itself into a legal person governed by the law of the target Member State, such a measure cannot be justified under the rules on freedom of establishment (Cartesio, paras. 110 ff.).
This jurisdiction was complemented by the CJEU in Vale (C-378/10) where the Court clarified the legal position of the Member State of destination. If a Member State allows for the conversion of companies governed by national law, it must also grant the same possibility to foreign EU companies (Vale, para. 46). In the absence of relevant EU-law, the target Member State may set up procedural rules to cover the cross-border conversion but must ensure that they are not less favourable than those governing similar domestic situations (principle of equivalence) and that they do not render impossible in practice or excessively difficult the exercise of rights conferred by the European Union legal order (principle of effectiveness) (Vale, para. 48).
The Opinion of AG Kokott
In her Opinion of 4 May 2017 (see here), AG Kokott took up a distinct position emphasizing the need for actual establishment for the application of Articles 49 and 54. This criterion is sufficiently met, as AG Kokott states, if, at least, the company intends to set up an actual establishment in the sense of conducting at least a nominal economic activity in the target Member State (Opinion, para 36). The AG underlines her position citing the above mentioned CJEU case-law in Factortame and Others (C-221/89), Commission v. United Kingdom (C-246/89), Centro di Musicologia Walter Stauffer (C-386/04) and Schmelz (C-97/09). She concludes that the freedom of establishment “gives economic operators in the European Union the right to choose the location of their economic activity, it does not give them the right to choose the law applicable to them” (Opinion, para. 38).
Implications of the Polbud judgment for the internal market
The CJEU now takes a different point of view: Once formed in accordance with the legislation of a Member State, companies enjoy the full range of that freedom. Nothing new, so far, as Geert van Calster suggests in his comment (see here). But what makes Polbud (r)evolutionary?
First, the CJEU creates legal certainty in an area that is particularly important for the functioning of the European Single Market. In its Cartesio judgment, the Court allowed for the cross-border conversion of EU companies in general but did little to shape the relationship between the involved Member States. Therefore, it was widely thought, that, just like AG Kokott propounds, the conversion of a company from one Member State to another required a genuine economic link with the State of destination. In Polbud, the CJEU clarifies that the regulatory power of a Member State ends when a company converts itself into a company governed by the law of another Member state. It is for the latter State to determine the legal and/or economic conditions that have to be satisfied by the company in order to bring the conversion into effect (paras 33 ff.). Under Articles 49 and 54 TFEU, the State of origin is only allowed to provide legislation for the protection of public interests (such as the protection of creditors, minority shareholders and employees) but cannot impose mandatory liquidation.
Secondly, the CJEU obliges the State of origin to observe the principle of equivalence. This principle, already known from the Vale decision (see above), was generally considered as obliging only the target Member State in cross-border conversion cases to legally treat domestic and foreign companies equally. By contrast, the State of origin was only thought to be bound by the general prohibition of restrictions (i.e. the prohibition of rules hampering or rendering less attractive the exercise of fundamental freedoms, see CJEU in Kraus, C-19/92, para. 32). In Polbud, the CJEU, without being explicit on this point, extends the scope of application of the principle of equivalence to the Member State of origin by stating that “the imposition, with respect to such a cross-border conversion, of conditions that are more restrictive than those that apply to the conversion of a company within that Member State itself” is not acceptable (para. 43).
Finally, recapitulating its jurisdiction in Daily Mail and National Grid Indus (C-371/10), the CJEU points out that exercising the freedom of establishment for the purpose of enjoying the benefit of the most favourable legislation, does not, in itself, amount to an abuse of rights (para. 62). The Court further explains its position saying that “the mere fact that a company transfers its registered office from one Member State to another cannot be the basis for a general presumption of fraud and cannot justify a measure that adversely affects the exercise of a fundamental freedom guaranteed by the Treaty” (para. 63).
Assessment
As already observed, Polbud encouragingly facilitates the cross-border mobility of companies but, on the other hand, leaves the reader with open questions.
It was high time to free cross-border conversions from the requirement of a genuine economic link with the Member State of destination. The legal situation before Polbud, that allowed letterbox companies to conduct their business in other Member States (which can be compared to initial choice of law) but prevented the formation of letterbox companies through the transfer of an existing company’s registered office to another Member State (which can be compared to subsequent choice of law), was somewhat arbitrary from a legal and economic point of view.
On the other hand, the extension of the scope of application of the principle of equivalence to the Member State of origin can only be seen as inconsistent with the legal doctrine of the freedom of establishment provided for in Articles 49 and 54 TFEU. Heretofore, only EU-foreigners could enjoy the right to non-discrimination, whereas, in regard to EU law, Member States were free to impose (relatively) stricter rules to its own citizens. This principle finds its expression, for example, in the above-mentioned treatment of companies as creatures of their state of origin that the CJEU established in its Cartesio judgment. As the principle of equivalence corresponds to the prohibition of discrimination, it is even more astonishing that the CJEU permits exemptions for overriding reasons in the public interest. These unwritten exemptions generally apply only in cases of restrictions of the freedom of movement (see Kraus, para. 32 and Gebhard, para. 37). On the contrary, discriminations require the strict observance of the catalogue of justifications set out in Article 52 TFEU. In future decisions, the CJEU should recall this clear distinction and cease to further the linguistic ambiguity.
News
Lecture on Globalization through the re-codification of property law?, organized in cooperation with ConflictofLaws.net
We are delighted to announce a lecture hosted by Matthias Weller at the University of Bonn in cooperation with ConflictofLaws.net. Professor Amnon Lehavi (Harry Radzyner Law School, Reichman University, Israel) is going to speak on ‘Globalization through the re-codification of property law?’.
The globalization of markets, technology, and interpersonal networks poses a growing challenge for national legal systems. Property law is traditionally considered a “domestic” field of law, not only because of its structural features (such as the in rem or numerus clausus principles), but also because it promotes cultural, economic, and social values. The decision if property law should be globalized also requires a choice among potential globalization strategies (how to do so). This lecture examines four globalization strategies: (1) soft law / private ordering; (2) conflict of laws; (3) approximation; and (4) supranationalism. It does so by comparing three types of assets: land, digital assets, and cultural property – which have all been dramatically affected by current processes of globalization, albeit in diverging ways. It is argued that different strategies of globalization, and corresponding forms of re-codification of national property laws, should be adopted for land, digital assets, and cultural property.
The event will take place on 17 May at 6.30pm at the Senate Hall of the University of Bonn; it can also be joined via Zoom. The flyer can be found here.
The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Webinars Approaching
As the series of webinars organised under the title The Future of Cross-Border Parenthood in the EU – Analysing the EU Parenthood Proposal starts this week (Wednesday!), we are pleased to share, for your convenience, the updated and final version of the program.
In the flyer attached you will also find the links for the registration, still open, and also accessible here.
Venezuela: Negative choice and UNIDROIT Principles in determining Law applicable to bill of exchange
by Claudia Madrid Martínez
On 17 March 2023, the Civil Chamber of the Supreme Court of Justice issued a decision whereby it annulled a judgment on appeal and decided the merits of the case, which concerned a bill of exchange issued in Curaçao, binding Venezuelan citizens domiciled in Venezuela.
The interesting thing about this judgment is that the Civil Chamber set aside the reasoning of the court of appeals according to which, since there are no international treaties in force between Venezuela and Curaçao, and there are no rules on bills of exchange in the Venezuelan Act on Private International Law, the Inter-American Convention on Conflicts of Laws concerning Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Invoices should be applied by analogy and, consequently, “the Law of the place where the obligation was contracted” (art. 1), i.e., the Law of Curaçao, should be applied to the bill of exchange.
It should be noted that, on the one hand, the only Conventions in force for Venezuela regarding bills of exchange are the Inter-American Convention on Conflicts of Laws regarding Bills of Exchange, Promissory Notes and Invoices, and the Bustamante Code. On the other hand, the Act on Private International Law does not establish rules on International Commercial Law, since —as stated in the Explanatory Memorandum— this matter must be developed within the Commercial Law itself in accordance with the general principles set forth in the Act on Private International Law.
In addition, Article 1 of the Act on Private International Law provides two tools to integrate the gaps in the Act and, in general, the gaps in the Venezuelan Private International Law system. This rule refers to analogy and to the generally accepted principles of Private International Law.
In the past, case law has admitted the application of treaties in force for Venezuela, but not for the other States involved in a specific case, either by analogy (Supreme Court of Justice, Political Administrative Chamber, judgment of 23 February 1981), or on the understanding that their solutions can be characterized as generally accepted principles of Private International Law (Second Court of First Instance in Commercial Matters of the Federal District and Miranda State, judgments of 29 February 1968 and 12 March 1970). Therefore, in this case, the arguments used by the court of appeal in analogically applying the Inter-American Convention were not erroneous.
The Civil Cassation Chamber, however, had another idea when it understood that the judge of appeal erred in the application of the Law of Curaçao to settle the case. Thus, the Chamber began by reaffirming the existence of “relevant foreign elements, such as the place of issuance of the bill of exchange, i.e., Curaçao, and the domicile of the parties involved in Venezuela”. The latter criterion, in fact, is not a foreign element, since it is located in the forum.
The Chamber then cites Article 1 of the Act on Private International Law, and concludes that there are no treaties in force, applicable to the case since Curaçao has not ratified any of the aforementioned treaties, and proceeds to the application of the domestic rules of Private International Law.
In particular, the Civil Chamber intends to determine, in the first place, the Law applicable to the form of the bill of exchange, which is why it resorts, rightly, to Article 37 of the Act on Private International Law, a rule that governs the form of all kinds of legal acts, which is perfectly applicable to bills of exchange, and also, as is well known, it establishes the locus regit actum principle in an alternative manner. Indeed, the rule allows the judge to choose between the Law of the place of conclusion of the act, which governs the substance of the act, and the Law of the domicile of the person doing the act, or of the common domicile of the persons doing the act.
Under Article 37, the choice of the connecting factor applicable to the specific case will depend on the favor validitatisprinciple, i.e., the judge must determine the Law applicable in order to favor the formal validity of the act. In this case, the Civil Chamber decided to apply the domicile criterion, without explaining why, although, basically, the reason can be intuited from the fact that the judge ended up applying Venezuelan law.
The Civil Chamber then begins its examination of the Law applicable to the merits and, in this regard, “finds it pertinent to bring up the provisions of Article 30 of the Act on Private International Law”, a rule that establishes the Law applicable to international contracts in cases where the parties have not chosen it. The nature of a bill of exchange can certainly be discussed, but it is not a contract.
In any case, the Civil Chamber does not justify its action, that is to say, it does not indicate the reason why a rule governing contracts should be applied to a bill of exchange. However, I do not know if this was consciously done, but it did leave out a series of points that are of great interest in the field of international contracts. Let us see.
The first thing the Chamber does is to identify, in accordance with Article 30 of the Law, the objective and subjective elements of the relationship, in order to determine with which Law the bill of exchange is more closely related and assumes for this purpose —although it does not quote it— the opinion expressed by Professor Fabiola Romero in her work “Derecho aplicable al contrato internacional” (in: Liber Amicorum, Homenaje a la Obra Científica y Académica de la profesora Tatiana B. de Maekelt, Caracas, Facultad de Ciencias Jurídicas y Políticas, UCV, Fundación Roberto Goldschmidt, 2001, Volume I, pp. 203 ss.), understanding that the subjective elements refer to the parties and the objective ones to the relationship itself.
Thus, the Civil Chamber includes in the subjective elements the nationality and domicile of the parties —all located in Venezuela—; and, within the objective elements, the place of subscription of the bill of exchange —Curaçao—, the place of payment —understanding as such the place indicated next to the name of the drawee and located in Curaçao—, and the fact that the bill is intended to be enforced and performed in Venezuela.
Then, in accordance with the last part of Article 30 of the Act on Private International Law, according to which the judge “shall also take into account the general principles of International Commercial Law recognized by international organizations”, the Civil Chamber analyzes such principles. And it does so considering their so-called conflictual function, since in this case they will be used, not to settle the merits, but to search for the Law applicable.
However, the principles sought by the Civil Chamber are contained in international treaties. Firstly, the 1980 Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts —now absorbed by the 2008 Rome I Regulation—, which refers to the closest links, but based rather on the questioned criterion of the characteristic performance. Secondly, Article 9 of the Inter-American Convention on the Law Applicable to International Contracts, rule that inspired the solution of Article 30 of the Act on Private International Law.
After reaffirming the application of the Law with which the bill of exchange is most closely connected, the Civil Chamber refers Article 31 of the Act on Private International Law, and understands that “in the event of a dispute regarding the Law to be applied, in the case of a contract or obligation of international origin, in the absence of a choice of Law by the parties or when it is ineffective, the judge shall apply ‘…when appropriate…’, that is, according to the specific case, the Lex mercatoria, which includes the usages, customs and commercial practices of general international acceptance”.
This rule leads the Chamber to consider the UNIDROIT Principles and it decides to apply them on the basis of the so-called negative choice —a discussed solution in the world of arbitration—, admitted by the Preamble of the Principles. Indeed, the Principles may be applied “when the parties have not chosen any law to govern their contract”.
Thus, the Civil Chamber ends up understanding that, in the absence of indication by the parties, in case of a monetary obligation, the place of performance will be “at the obligee’s place of business” (art. 6.1.6[1][a]).
“Now, considering the objective and subjective elements that are directly linked to the referred bill of exchange, as well as the general principles of International Commercial Law accepted by international organizations, the customs and manners of international trade, known as Lex mercatoria, according to Articles 30 and 31 of the Act on Private International Law, it is concluded that the Law applicable to the performance of the bill of exchange shall be the Law of the place of performance, it is concluded that the Law applicable to resolve the merits of the case is Venezuelan Law, given that the parties are Venezuelans, their domicile is in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela and the commercial instrument, although signed in Curaçao, is intended to be enforceable in the Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. It is hereby declared”.
The Civil Chamber applied Venezuelan Law to both the form and the substance of the bill of exchange. But there is more, when deciding on the merits, instead of following the solution of the UNIDROIT Principles and calculating interest according to the Law of the State of the currency of payment (art. 7.4.9), it did so instead “at the rate of five percent (5%) per annum, according to Article 456, ordinal 2° of the Venezuelan Commercial Code… for which the conversion into bolivars must be made at the rate established by the Central Bank of Venezuela for the day of payment, all this through a complementary expert opinion, in accordance with Article 249 of the Code of Civil Procedure and not as erroneously requested by the plaintiff, that is to say, calculated at the legal interest rates that have been fixed for each semester by the Central Bank for Curaçao and St. Martin (Centrale Bank Curaçao en Sint Maarten)” (bold in the original).
There are undoubtedly some noteworthy aspects of this decision that hopefully will be taken into account in the future in cases related to international contracting. Others, such as the characterization of a bill of exchange as a contract, the disregard of the possibility of applying international treaties by analogy or as general principles, and the calculation of interest on an international obligation, denominated in foreign currency, in accordance with Venezuelan Law, could rather be forgotten.
Translated by the author from her original post in Spanish.