On Monday, the United States Supreme Court decided the case of Ashcroft v. Iqbal, which concerned whether current and former federal officials, including FBI Director Robert Mueller and former Attorney General John Ashcroft, are entitled to qualified immunity against allegations they knew of or condoned racial and religious discrimination against individuals detained in the wake of the September 11 attacks.  The case presented the following legal issue:  “Whether a conclusory allegation that a cabinet level officer or other high-ranking official knew of, condoned, or agreed to subject a plaintiff to allegedly unconstitutional acts purportedly committed by subordinate officials is sufficient to state individual-capacity claims against those officials under Bivens.”  Pet. for Cert. I.  The Court concluded in an opinion authored by Justice Kennedy, that, among other things, Iqbal failed to comply with the pleading standards of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure because the complaint failed to plead sufficient facts to state a claim for purposeful and unlawful discrimination.  Slip op. at 23.

Outside of its specific Bivens context, this case is important generally for private international law cases in the United States.  The five-member majority in Iqbal (Justice Kennedy joined by Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Scalia, Thomas, & Alito) has made clear that the heightened standards of pleading announced in 2007 in Bell Atlantic v. Twombly should be applied in cases beyond the antitrust context.  In Twombly, the Court held that to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) (requiring that a pleading contain “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief”) that a complaint must contain “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”  There had been some confusion in the lower federal courts as to whether that heightened pleading standard of plausibility applied in cases outside of the antitrust context.  The Court in Iqbal has now answered that question in the affirmative, generally requiring all civil plaintiffs to meet the following standard:  “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'”  Slip op. at 14.  As such, enough facts must be plead to allow “the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.”  Id.  A complaint must therefore show more than “a sheer possibility that the defendant has acted unlawfully.”  Id.  

The impact on private international law cases in the US federal courts will be profound.  Indeed, plaintiffs in such cases will now have to allege not simply a short and plain statement of alleged illegal activities, but enough specific facts so that a court may determine that the complaint is beyond the realm of mere possibility.  General recitations of alleged illegal conduct and hopes for discovery to make out claims looking towards summary judgment will now no longer be enough to allow cases to go forward in US federal district court.  As such, the preliminary motion to dismiss has now been converted in most cases to a motion for summary judgment.  At bottom, plaintiffs will now find it harder to stay in federal district court, and defendants will now be armed with another defensive weapon, in many cases dispositive, in resisting private international litigation.

It should be asked whether this shift from the simple notice pleading countenanced by the Federal Rules to a form of heightened pleading is a good thing.  The Court appears to be taken with the belief that US courts are being deluged with frivilous claims.  As such, plaintiffs should be required to plead more than the possible to stay in federal court.  But, the Federal Rules themselves seem to contemplate that most cases will proceed on to summary judgement and/or trial.  The Court’s rule will be especially problematic in private international law cases.  Such cases often require extensive discovery to make out claims, as the acts and/or occurrences allegedly giving rise to unlawful activity occur outside the borders of the United States and present unique problems of factual development given their transnational dimension.  Under Iqbal, private international plaintiffs will not be able to depend on access to such discovery simply by filing a complaint.

In sum, surviving a motion to dismiss in private international law cases in US federal courts is now much harder and plaintiffs would be well served to conduct extensive and, to be sure, expensive fact development in advance of filing their complaint.

The formerly announced international symposium in Tokyo on the topic of “Intellectual Property and International Civil Litigation” was held some ten days ago and several contributions from the speakers are accessible for download from the official website.

The available papers include:

In addition, there are contributions presenting the provisional text of CLIP Principles in the part dealing with international jurisdiction and recognition/enforcement of foreign decisions in IP cases by two CLIP members, Dr. Christian Heinze and Professor Pedro A. De Miguel Asensio, respectively.

Professors Cyril Nourissat and Edouard Treppoz will organize a conference at the Faculty of Law of Lyon 3 University  on Private International and Intellectual Property (Droit international privé et propriété intellectuelle) on June 4.

The morning will be dedicated to choice of law, while the afternoon will address jurisdictional issues. Speakers will be a mix of academics and practitioners.

The programme of the conference can be found here, and after the jump.

PROGRAMME

9h10–9h30 Rapport introductif : De nouveaux outils communautaires pour le droit international privé de la propriété intellectuelle – C. NOURISSAT, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université Jean Moulin-Lyon 3

LA LOI APPLICABLE : QUELLES STRATEGIES METTRE EN PLACE AUJOURD’HUI ?
(9h30 – 10h45)

Président de séance :
THIERRY SUEUR
Président du Groupe français de l’AIPPI
Directeur de la PI du Groupe Air Liquide

• Le principe de territorialité et la propriété intellectuelle
J.-S. BERGE, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université Nanterre La Défense – Paris X
• Quelle loi en matière de contrats de propriété intellectuelle ?
B. UGHETTO, Avocat à la Cour, Cabinet Ratheaux, Chargé d’enseignements à l’Université Jean Moulin-Lyon 3
• Quelle loi en matière de contrefaçon ?
N. BOUCHE, Maitre de conférences, Université Jean Moulin-Lyon 3
10h45 – 11h00 Pause

Table ronde : la pratique confrontée au choix de la loi applicable
(11h00 – 12h45)
Modérateur :
YVES REINHARD
Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université Jean Moulin- Lyon 3
Directeur du Centre Paul Roubier
1. Choix de la loi applicable et contrats de PI transnationaux en pratique
A. MARIE, Conseil en Propriété Industrielle, Cabinet Beau de Loménie
2. Pourquoi choisir la loi française ?
C. CARON, Avocat à la Cour, Cabinet Christophe Caron, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université Val de Marne – Paris XII

3. Pourquoi choisir la loi anglaise ?
L. BRAZELL, Solicitor – Advocate, Cabinet Bird & Bird
4. Droits d’auteur et utilisation contractuelle sur l’Internet
A. ZANGS, Directrice Business Affairs, Société Deezer

LES NOUVELLES STRATEGIES CONTENTIEUSES
(14h00 – 15h00)

Président de séance :
THIERRY MOLLET-VIEVILLE
Président de l’AIPPI
Avocat à la Cour de Paris

• Quel juge en matière de contrefaçon ?
M.-E. ANCEL, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université Val de Marne–Paris XII
• L’exclusivité du juge du titre
J. RAYNARD, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université de Montpellier I
• Les conflits de procédures
T. AZZI, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université René Descartes – Paris V

Table Ronde : la pratique confrontée aux enjeux contentieux
(15h00 – 16h45)

Modérateur :
JACQUES DE WERRA
Professeur à la Faculté de droit de l’Université de Genève

1. La gestion du contentieux international notamment en matière de brevet
P. VERON, Président d’honneur de l’European Patent Lawyers Association (EPLAW) et de l’Association des avocats en propriété industrielle (AAPI)

2. La gestion du contentieux international notamment en matière de brevet, le point de vue de l’avocat allemand
DR. MARTIN KÖHLER, Rechtsanwalt
3. L’exécution des jugements français à l’étranger et des jugements étrangers en France
J.-P. STOULS, Avocat à la Cour, Cabinet Alister Avocats.
4. Le point de vue de l’entreprise : efficacité du système juridictionnel français
J. RIZENTHALER, Directeur de la Propriété Intellectuelle, Société Schneider Electric

16h45 – 17h00 Pause

17H00 – 17h20 Un autre regard : le point de vue de l’American Law Institute sur le droit international privé de la propriété intellectuelle
E. TREPPOZ, Professeur agrégé des Facultés de droit, Université Lumière – Lyon 2

17h20 Propos conclusifs, TH. MOLLET-VIEVILLE

From June 3-5, 2009, the International Association of Procedural Law is holding its annual conference in Toronto, Canada.  Entitled “The Future of Categories–Categories of the Future,” the conference will showcase “leading proceduralists from around the world” who will present “their perspectives on the ways in which procedural reform is precipitating a collapse of the traditional categories of civil and common law in response to a new range of concerns and aspirations for procedure.”

More information on the conference, speakers, and program is available at http://www.iapl2009.org/index.html

The report of the Hague Conference is here.

On May 1, 2009, the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit issued a noteworthy opinion in the consolidated cases of Abad v. Bayer Corp. and Pastor v. Bridgestone/Firestone. These consolidated appeals raise interesting issues regarding the application of the forum non conveniens doctrine in US courts.

In the Abad case, Argentinian plaintiffs filed products liability actions against American manufacturers for injuries sustained in Argentina.  Plaintiffs alleged that they (a group of hemophiliacs or their decedents) were infected with the AIDS virus because the defendant manufacturers of the clotting factor that hemophiliacs take to minimize bleeding failed to eliminate the virus from the donors’ blood from which the clotting factor was made.  The Pastor case was a wrongful-death suit growing out of a fatal auto accident in Argentina with a car equipped with tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone.  In both cases, defendants moved the district court for dismissal under forum non conveniens and the district court dismissed the case in favor of the courts in Argentina.  On appeal, the Seventh Circuit, with Judge Richard Posner writing, applied the abuse of discretion standard and thus affirmed.

This opinion is interesting for at least three reasons.  First, appellants pressed the argument on appeal that federal district courts have the “virtually unflagging obligation . . . to exercise the jurisdiction given them.”  Colorado River Conservation District v. United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976).  See slip op. at 2-3.  The court rejected that argument in favor of an abuse of discretion standard of review, which affords district courts substantial leeway in deciding to send international civil cases to a foreign forum.

Second, the court reaffirmed the discretion of district courts in applying the Gulf Oil factors, but with an interesting twist:  Judge Posner recognized that Gulf Oil represented an accommodation of state interests in an international world.  In his words, “[a]nd so the plaintiffs . . . argue that the United States has a greater interest in the litigation than Argentina because the defendants are American companies, while the defendants argue that Argentina has a greater interest than the United States because the plaintiffs are Argentines.  The reality is that neither country appears to have any interest in having the litigation tried in its courts rather than in the courts of the other country; certainly no one in the government of either country has expressed to us a desire to have these lawsuits litigated in its courts.”  Slip op. at 10 (emphasis added).  Has the Seventh Circuit opened the door for such submissions?  Should litigants, therefore, now seek to have governments file statements of interest in forum non conveniens cases?  If so, one is left to wonder how such a submission will matter and whether US courts will defer to them.

Finally, this case and others reported recently on this site confirm that forum non conveniens is being used frequently in international litigation in US courts.  With the Supreme Court’s recent decision in Sinochem (holding that district courts may determine forum non conveniens questions before ascertaining jurisdiction), are we seeing an increased usage of forum non conveniens in international civil cases?  If so, is this a good thing?

At bottom, the doctrine of forum non conveniens in the United States continues to evolve.

An interesting conference on issues relating to name and personal identity in private international law and EU law will be hosted by the Faculty of Law of the University of Milan – Bicocca on 22 May 2009 (h. 9:15-13:45): “Il diritto al nome e all’identità personale nell’Unione europea” (Right to Name and Personal Identity in the EU).

Here’s the programme (the session will be held in Italian, except otherwise specified):

Chair: Roberto Baratta (University of Macerata, Permament Representation of Italy to the European Union);

• “Il diritto al nome come espressione del principio di eguaglianza tra coniugi nella giurisprudenza italiana”: Maria Dossetti (University of Milan – Bicocca), Anna Galizia Danovi (Centro per la Riforma del Diritto di Famiglia);
• “Le droit au nom dans la jurisprudence de la Cour de Justice” (in French): Jean-Yves Carlier (Université Catholique de Louvain);
• “Le droit au nom, entre liberté de circulation et droits fondamentaux” (in French): Laura Tomasi (Registry of the European Court of Human Rights);
• “La legge applicabile al nome: conseguenze dei principi comunitari ed europei sul diritto internazionale privato”: Giulia Rossolillo (University of Pavia);
• “Il riconoscimento del diritto al nome nella prassi italiana”: Sara Tonolo (University of Insubria);
• Shorter reports and debate: Valeria Carfì (University of Siena), Alessandra Lang (University of Milan), Diletta Tega (University of Milan Bicocca)

Concluding remarks: Roberto Baratta.

(Many thanks to Giulia Rossolillo for the tip-off)

Recently, the May/June issue of the German legal journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was released.

It contains the following articles/case notes (including the reviewed decisions):

• Peter Kindler: “Internationales Gesellschaftsrecht 2009: MoMiG, Trabrennbahn, Cartesio und die Folgen” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The article summarizes, in a European as well as in a German perspective, the recent developments for corporations in private international law in 2008. In German legislation, the law aiming at the modernization of the private company limited by shares (“MoMiG”) has abandoned the requirement for German companies of having a real seat in Germany, introducing at the same time stricter disclosure requirements in respect of branches of foreign companies in Germany. The German Federal Court, in a ruling of October 2008 (“Trabrennbahn”), has applied the real seat doctrine to companies incorporated outside the EU – in this case in Switzerland –, thus confirming the traditional approach of German courts since the 19^th century. Finally, in a European perspective, the article addresses the judgment of the EJC in case C-210/06 (“Cartesio”) referring to the extent of freedom of establishment in case of transfer of a company seat to a EU Member State other than the EU Member State of incorporation. The article concludes with the statement, inter alia, that EU Member States are free to use the real seat as a connecting factor in private international company law.

• Marc-Philippe Weller: “Die Rechtsquellendogmatik des Gesellschaftskollisionsrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:

This article deals with the International Company Law in the aftermath of the judgments “Cartesio” from the ECJ and “Trabrennbahn” from the German Federal Court of Justice. There are three different sources of International Company Law. The sources have to be applied in the specific order of precedence stated by Art. 3 EGBGB:

(1.) The European International Company Law is based on the freedom of establishment according to Art. 43, 48 EC. The freedom of establishment contains a hidden conflict of law rule known as “Incorporation Theory” for companies that relocate their real seat in another EC-member state.

(2.) As part of Public International Company Law the “Incorporation Theory” is derived from various international treaties such as the German-US-American-Friendship-Agreement.

(3.) The German Autonomous International Company Law follows the “Real Seat Theory” when it is applied in cases with third state companies (e.g. Swiss companies). Therefore, substantive German Company Law is applicable to third state companies with an inland real seat. According to the so called “Wechselbalgtheorie” (Goette), foreign corporations are converted into domestic partnerships.

The German jurisdiction is bound to the German Autonomous International Company Law (i.e. the real seat theory) to the extent of which the European and the Public International Company Law is not applicable.

• Alexander Schall: “Die neue englische floating charge im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:

After Inspire Art, thousands of English letter box companies have come to Germany. But may they also bring in their domestic security, the qualified floating charge? The answer depends on the classification of the floating charge under the German conflict laws. Since German law does not acknowledge global securities on undertakings, the traditional approach was to split up the floating charge and to subject its various effects (e.g. security over assets, the right to appoint a receiver/administrator) to the respective conflict rules. That meant in particular that property in Germany could not be covered by a floating charge (lex rei sitae). This treatment seems overly complicated and not up to the needs of an efficient internal market. The better approach is to understand the floating charge as a company law tool, a kind of universal assignment. This allows valid floating charges on the assets of UK companies based in Germany. And while the new right to appoint an administrator under the Enterprise Act 2002 is part of English insolvency law, the article shows that this does not preclude the traditional right to appoint a (contractual or – rather – administrative) receiver for an English company with a CoMI in Germany.

• Stefan Perner: “Das internationale Versicherungsvertragsrecht nach Rom I” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Unlike its predecessor – the Rome Convention –, the recently adopted Regulation (EC) No 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) covers the entire insurance contract law. The following article outlines the new legal framework.

• Jens Rogler: “Die Entscheidung des BVerfG vom 24.1.2007 zur Zustellung einer US-amerikanischen Klage auf Strafschadensersatz: – Ist das Ende des transatlantischen Justizkonflikts erreicht?”
  This article deals with the service of actions for punitive damages under the Hague Service Convention. The author refers first to a decision of the Higher Regional Court Koblenz of 27.06.2005: In this case, the German defendant should be ordered to pay treble damages in a class action based on the Sherman Act.  Here, the Regional Court held that the Hague Service Convention was not applicable since the case did not constitute a civil or commercial matter in terms of Art. 1 (1) Hague Service Convention. The author, however, argues in favour of an autonomous interpretation of  the term “civil or commercial matter” according to which class actions directed at punitive/treble damages can be regarded as civil matters in terms of Art. 1 Hague Service Convention.Further, the author turns to Art. 13 Hague Service Convention according to which the State addressed may refuse to comply with a request for service if it deems that complicance would infringe its sovereignty or security. There have been several decisions dealing with the applicability of Art. 13 Hague Service Convention with regard to class actions aiming at punitive/treble damages. Those decisions discussed in particular whether Art. 13 corresponds to public policy. In this respect, most courts held that Art. 13 has to be interpreted more narrowly than the public policy clause. In this context, the author refers in particular to a decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court of 24 January 2007 (2 BvR 1133/04): In this decision, the Constitutional Court has held that the mere possibility of an imposition of punitive damages does not violate indispensable constitutional principles. According to the court, the service may be irreconcilable with fundamental principles of a constitutional state in case of punitive damages threatening the economic existence of the defendant or in case of class actions if – i.e. only then – those claims deem to be a manifest abuse of right. Thus, as the author shows, the Constitutional Court agrees with a restrictive interpretation of Art. 13 Hague Service Convention.

• Christian Heinze: “Der europäische Deliktsgerichtsstand bei Lauterkeitsverstößen”
  The article examines the impact of the new choice of law rule on unfair competition and acts restricting free competition (Art. 6 Rome II Regulation) on Art. 5 No. 3 Brussels I Regulation: The author argues that it should be adhered to the principle of ubiquity according to which the claimant has a choice between the courts at the place where the damage occurred and the courts of the place of the event giving rise to it. In view of Art. 6 Rome II Regulation he suggests, however, to locate the place where the damage occurred with regard to Art. 5 No. 3 Brussels I Regulation in case of obligations arising out of an act of unfair competition at the place where the competitive relations are impaired or where the collective interests of consumers are affected – if the respective measure had intended effects there. In case an act of unfair competition affects exclusively the interests of a specific competitor, the place should be determined where the damaging effects occur, which is usually the place where the affected establishment has its seat. With regard to the determination of the place of the event giving rise to the damage, the author suggests to apply a centralised concept according to which the place of the event giving rise to the damage is, as a rule, the place where the infringing party has its seat.

• Peter Mankowski: “Neues zum ‘Ausrichten’ unternehmerischer Tätigkeit unter Art. 15 Abs. 1 lit. c EuGVVO” – the English abstract reads as follows:

“Targeted activity” in Art. 15 (1) lit. c Brussels I Regulation and in Art. 6 (1)  lit. b Rome I Regulation aims at extending consumer protection. Accordingly, it at least comprises the ground which was already covered by “advertising” under Arts. 13 (1) pt. 3 lit. a Brussels Convention; 5 (2) 1st indent Rome Convention. “Targeted activity” is a technologically neutral criterion. Any distinction between active of passive websites has to be opposed for the purposes of international consumer protection since it would fit ill with the paramount importance of the commercial goal pursued by the marketer’s activities. Any kind of more or less unreflected import of concepts from the United States should be denied in particular. Any switch in the mode of communication does not play a significant role, either.

Activities by other persons ought to be deemed to be the marketer’s activities insofar as he has ordered or enticed such activities. In principle, registration in lists for mere communication purposes do not fall within this category. If only part of the overall programme of an enterprise is advertised “targeted activity” does not exclude contracts for other parts of that programme if and insofar as such advertising has prompted the consumer to get into contact with the professional.

• Dirk Looschelders: “Begrenzung des ordre public durch den Willen des Erblassers” – the English abstract reads as follows:

When applying the Islamic law of succession, in many cases conflicts occur with the fundamental principles of German law, especially with the German fundamental rights. In particular problems arise in view of the Islamic rule that the right of succession is excluded when the potential heir and the deceased belong to different religions. The Higher Regional Court of Berlin ascertains that such a rule is basically inconsistent with the German “ordre public”, regulated in Article 6 EGBGB. In this particular case, however, the court refused the recourse to Article 6 EGBGB, because the consequence of the application of the Egypt law and the will of the deceased – the exclusion of the illegitimate son of Christian faith from the succession – comply with each other. In the present case, this conclusion is strengthened by the fact that the deceased has manifested his will in a holographic will, which is effective under German law. Nevertheless, with regard to the testamentary freedom (Art. 14 Abs. 1 S. 1 GG), the same conclusion would be necessary, if a corresponding will of the deceased could be discovered in any other way. Insofar, the “ordre public” is limited by the will of the deceased.

• Boris Kasolowsky/Magdalene Steup: “Ordre-public-Widrigkeit kartellrechtlicher Schiedssprüche – der flagrante, effective et concrète -Test der französischen Cour de cassation” – the English abstract reads as follows:
  

The Cour de Cassation decision in SNF v. Cytec is the first case in which a final appeal court of an EU Member State dealt with the enforcement of an arbitration award allegedly in breach of EC competition law. On the basis of the breach of EC competition law, one of the parties argued that the enforcement of the award would – pursuant to Eco Swiss – be contrary to public policy within the meaning of Article V. 2 (b) of the New York Convention.

The Cour de Cassation considered in particular the intensity of the courts’ review when dealing with a party resisting enforcement of an award for being contrary to competition law and public policy. In its decision it reconfirmed the view of the Cour d’appel that the review out to be rather limited.

The article suggests by reference to the Cour de Cassation in SNF v Cytec, but also to the decisions rendered in other jurisdictions, that (i) a rather limited standard level of review of arbitration awards for breach of EC competition law giving rise to a breach of public policy is being developed and (ii) only the most obvious breaches may result in a challenge succeeding or enforcement being refused. Consequently, there should (increasingly) be a level playing field within Europe. Further, given the rather limited review – which is now becoming accepted – there should in most cases also be no significant additional risks in enforcing arbitration awards in EU Member State jurisdictions rather than in non-EU Member State jurisdictions.

• Sebastian Mock: “Spruchverfahren im europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Austrian and German corporate law provide a special proceeding for minority shareholders to review the appraisal granted by the majority shareholder on certain occasions (Spruchverfahren). This proceeding stands separate from other proceedings regarding the squeeze out of the minority shareholders and does not legally affect the validity of the decision. In contrast to Austrian and German civil procedure law the application of the Brussels regulation does not generally lead to jurisdiction of the court of the state where the seat of the company is located. Neither the rule on exclusive jurisdiction of Art. 22 no. 2 Brussels regulation nor the rules on special jurisdiction of Art. 5 no. 5 Brussels regulation apply for the Spruchverfahren. As the consequence the international jurisdiction under the Brussels regulation is only determined by the domicile respectively the seat of the defendant in the procedure (Art. 2 Brussels regulation). However, a corporation can ensure the concentration of all proceedings in the Member state of their seat by implementing a prorogation of jurisdiction according to Art. 23 Brussels regulation in their corporate charter.

• Arno Wohlgemuth: “Internationales Erbrecht Turkmenistans” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The law governing intestate and testamentary succession in Turkmenistan is dispersed in different bodies of law such as the Turkmenistan Civil Code of 1998, the rules surviving as ratio scripta of the abrogated Civil Code of the Turkmen SSR of 1963, the Law on Public Notary of 1999, and the Minsk CIS Convention on legal assistance and legal relations in civil, family and criminal matters of 1993, as amended. Whereas in principle movables are distributed as provided by the law in force at the place where the decedent was domiciled at the time of his death, immovable property will pass in accordance with the law prevailing at the place where it is located.

• Christian Kohler on the meeting of the European Group for Private International Law (EGPIL) in Bergen on 19-21 September 2008:  “Erstreckung der europäischen Zuständigkeitsordnung auf drittstaatsverknüpfte Streitigkeiten – Tagung der Europäischen Gruppe für Internationales Privatrecht in Bergen”
  The consultation’s focus was on the proposed amendments of Regulation 44/2001 in order to apply it to external situations. The introduction of this proposal – which can be found (besides in this issue of the IPRax) also at the EGPIL’s website – reads as follows:

At its meeting in Bergen, on 19-21 September 2008, the European Group for Private International Law, giving effect to the conclusions of its meeting in Hamburg in 2007, which took into account the growth of the external powers of the Union in civil and commercial matters, considered the question of enlarging the scope of Regulation 44/2001 (“Brussels I”) to cover cases having links to third countries, cases to which the common rules on jurisdiction do not apply. On this basis, it proposes, as its initial suggestion, and as one possibility among others, the amendment of the Regulation for the purpose of applying its rules of jurisdiction to all external situations. These proposals are without prejudice to the examination of other possible solutions – in particular, conventions adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law – or a similar analysis of other instruments, such as Regulation 2201/2003 (“Brussels II bis”) or the new Lugano Convention of 30 October 2007. Other questions still remain to be considered – in particular the adaptation of Article 6 of Brussels I and the extension of Brussels I to cover the recognition and enforcement of judgments given in a third country.

• Erik Jayme/Michael Nehmer on a symposium hosted by the Law Faculty of the University of Salerno on the international aspects of intellectual property: “Urheberrecht und Kulturgüterschutz im Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht – Studientag an der Universität Salerno”

The latest in a long line of private international law monographs from OUP is The Anti-Suit Injunction by Thomas Raphael. The description from the OUP site:

• The first major treatment of anti-suit injunctions, a complex area of private international law
• Concise chapters and a clearly laid out structure with a selection of useful precedents and templates, designed to assist practitioners when preparing applications under pressure
• Comprehensive analysis of relevant cases, including Turner v Grovit and The Front Comor
• Separate chapters dealing with history and fundamental topics of controversy allow a detailed exploration of difficult questions in complicated cases

Questions relating to anti-suit injunctions arise frequently in commercial practice, as commercial litigation is often disputed in several jurisdictions simultaneously. In these circumstances, a party preferring to conduct its litigation in England would need to determine whether it might be possible and effective to obtain an anti-suit injunction to restrain the other party from conducting its proceedings in another jurisdiction.
This book provides a comprehensive but concise analysis of all the relevant principles and case-law surrounding anti-suit injunctions. Particular emphasis is given to addressing the many practical problems that are likely to confront a practitioner applying for or resisting an anti-suit injunction in urgent circumstances. There are also chapters on related topics such as claims for damages in respect of foreign litigation and other practical remedies that can be used when an anti-suit injunction is not available. The effect of European Jurisdictional Law on the power to grant anti-suit injunctions is considered in detail. This book is the first major treatment of anti-suit injunctions and examines in detail those effects, and evaluates the case law as it has developed.

Believe me, at £95 it’s very competitively priced; it’s worth that for the comprehensive footnoting alone. You can purchase it from our secure, Amazon-powered bookshop, or from the OUP website.

The Chair of European Law of the Université Catholique de Louvain is seeking to recruit a postdoctoral fellow for next academic year.

This post is opened in the context of a research project on the relationship between private international law and competition law, which is financed by the European Commission. The work will predominantly focus on collective action/redress issues in civil litigation related to breach of competition law.

The application deadline is June 30, 2009 and the contract would start in September 2009.

The Université Catholique de Louvain (UCL ) was established in 1425 and continues to be committed today to the highest standards in education and research. Located in Louvain-la-Neuve and Brussels, the UCL campuses welcome 21.000 students and employ 5.000 academics, researchers and support staff. In that respect, UCL is by far the largest French-speaking university of Belgium and one of the largest in the world. The UCL law school (located in Louvain-la-Neuve) is as old as the university and offers a full range of law degrees. Many of its faculty members are leaders in their respective fields and are part of European and international research networks.

The Chair of European Law was established in 2007 to further strengthen the law school’s resources in the area of European Union law. In terms of research, the Chair focuses on the study of tools and techniques developed at EU level to manage legal diversity and promote integration. Recently, the Chair has received significant funding from the European Commission to explore and offer solutions to various coordination issues raised by the implementation of EC competition law (Regulation 1/2003) and antitrust litigation, in particular damages claims. The project is carried out in partnership with the “Collège européen” of University Paris II Panthéon-Assas (Professors L. Idot and C. Kessedjian) and the Max Planck Institute for International and Comparative Law (Prof. J. Basedow).

In that framework, the Chair of European Law is seeking to recruit a fulltime Postdoctoral Researcher for a one-year period starting in September 2009. The postdoctoral researcher will be attached administratively to the Charles De Visscher Center for International and European Law, a team of about 15 academics whose research interests cover a broad range of international and European law topics. In practice, he/she will work in close contact with Professor Stéphanie Francq, the holder of the Chair of European Law, and other researchers involved in the project financed by the European Commission.

The position is open for a promising researcher in law of English mother tongue (or fluent in English) interested in undertaking in-depth research in relation to collective action/redress issues in the field of competition law (aside from his/her own research projects). Preference will be given to researchers who have already worked on competition and/or conflict-of-laws issues in the context of the European Union. The position will involve some management tasks (assistance in the organization of a research seminar and an international conference) but no teaching or tutorial assignment.

Candidates for the position must evidence the following qualifications:
A doctorate or equivalent degree in law (or a doctoral manuscript approved before the application deadline)
Research experience and publications commensurate with the stage at which the candidate finds him- or herself in his or her career;
Interest and ability to carry out inter-disciplinary and collective research;
Languages: English mother tongue (or fluency demonstrated by prior professional experience); French (at least passive knowledge) and ideally German (at least passive knowledge).

Terms of employment. Post-graduate research grants at UCL amount to approximately (but not less than) €2000/month (net), depending on seniority, and, depending on the nationality of the recipient, include access to the Belgian welfare system and thus health benefits. The post-graduate researcher will also benefit from private office space, access to modern computing facilities and to the library and other academic resources generally available to faculty members and the scientific staff. In addition, he/she will benefit from the daily interactions with other members of the Charles De Visscher Center for International and European Law and, generally, from access to the whole UCL legal community.

Applications. Applications and accompanying documents should be submitted before June 30, 2009 to the following three addressees: Prof. Stéphanie Francq (Holder of the
Chair of European Law – Stephanie.Francq@uclouvain.be), Prof. March Fallon (President of the Charles De Visscher Center for International and European Law –
Marc.Fallon@uclouvain.be) and Damien Gerard (Research Fellow at the Chair of European Law – Damien.Gerard@uclouvain.be). Applications should indicate how the
candidate meets the requirements set out above and should include a curriculum vitae, copies of sample articles and/or papers and two letters of references. The most promising
candidates will be contacted for a meeting or a telephone interview in early July 2009.

Information. For further questions please contact Ms. Rita Vandenplas, secretary of the Chair of European Law at Rita.Vandenplas@uclouvain.be or +32 (0)10 474773 or Mr
Damien Gerard, Research Fellow at the Chair of European Law: Damien.Gerard@uclouvain.be or +32 (0)10 474768.