A very interesting conference on the Rome I Regulation will be hosted by the University of Venice “Ca’ Foscari” on Friday 28 November 2008: “La nuova disciplina comunitaria della legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali” (The new EC regime on the law applicable to contractual obligations). The symposium is organised in the frame of a research project carried on by several Italian universities (Milan, LUISS-Guido Carli of Rome, Cagliari, Venice and Macerata) and cofinanced by the Italian Ministry of Research and University (MIUR). Here’s an excerpt of the programme (our translation; the sessions will be held in Italian, except otherwise specified):

Welcome and opening remarks: Pierfrancesco Ghetti (Rector, University “Ca’ Foscari” of Venice); Carmelita Camardi, (Director, Department of Law, University “Ca’ Foscari” of Venice); Mauro Pizzigati (President of the Bar Council of Triveneto).

PROBLEMI GENERALI (GENERAL PROBLEMS) (9:30 – 13:00)
Chair: Nerina Boschiero (University of Milan)

• Paul Lagarde (University of Paris I – Sorbonne): Introduction. Considérations de méthode (in French);
• Fabrizio Marrella (University “Ca’ Foscari” of Venice): Funzione ed oggetto dell’autonomia della volontà: il problema della mancata “delocalizzazione” (Function and Object of Party Autonomy: the Issue of “delocalization”);
• Nerina Boschiero (University of Milan): I limiti al principio di autonomia derivanti dalle norme imperative, dall’ordine pubblico e dal diritto comunitario derivato (Limits to Party Autonomy: Mandatory Provisions, Public Policy and Secondary EC Law);
• Ugo Villani (University LUISS-Guido Carli of Rome): La legge applicabile in mancanza di scelta dei contraenti (Applicable Law in the Absence of Choice);
• Andrea Bonomi (University of Lausanne): Le norme di applicazione necessaria (Overriding Mandatory Provisions);
• James Fawcett (University of Nottingham): UK Perspective on Rome I Regulation (in English).

Debate.

– – – – – –

QUESTIONI SPECIFICHE (SPECIFIC ISSUES) (14:30 – 16:00)
Chair: Laura Picchio Forlati (University of Padova)

• Paolo Bertoli (University of Insubria): Ambito di applicazione e materie escluse: in particolare, la responsabilità precontrattuale (Scope of Application and Excluded Matters: in particular, Precontractual Liability);
• Paola Piroddi (University of Cagliari): I contratti di assicurazione (Insurance Contracts);
• Francesco Seatzu (University of Cagliari): I contratti conclusi con i consumatori e i contratti individuali di lavoro (Consumer Contracts and Individual Employment Contracts);
• Gianluca Contaldi (University of Macerata): I contratti di trasporto (Contracts of Carriage);
• Angelica Bonfanti (University of Milan): Le relazioni con le convenzioni internazionali in vigore (Relationships with Existing International Conventions).

– – – – – –

SHORTER REPORTS (16:10 – 16:50)

• Francesca Villata (University of Milan): I contratti relativi a strumenti finanziari (Contracts on Financial Instruments);
• Zeno Crespi Reghizzi (University of Milan): Le conseguenze della nullità del contratto (Consequences of Nullity of the Contract);
• Nerina Boschiero (University of Milan): I contratti di proprietà intellettuale tra Roma I e Roma II (Contracts on Intellectual Property Rights between Rome I and Rome II Regulations).

Debate.

Concluding remarks: Tullio Treves (University of Milan; Judge, ITLOS).

– – – – – –

Due to organisational issues, participation to the conference is restricted to a limited number of invited scholars. Anyway, the sessions will be recorded and made available afterwards on the website of the Italian Society of International Law (SIDI), so that interested parties unable to attend may follow the conference. In addition, the papers presented at the colloquium will be published both in English and Italian edition. Further information will be provided on our site as soon as available.

(Many thanks to Prof. Nerina Boschiero)

Recently, the November/December 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):

• B. Hess: “Rechtspolitische Überlegungen zur Umsetzung von Art. 15 der Europäischen Zustellungsverordnung – VO (EG) Nr. 1393/2007” – the English abstract reads as follows:

The article deals with article 15 EC Regulation on Service of Documents as revised by Regulation (EC) No 1393/2007 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters. The author recommends to extend the application of cross border direct service of documents within the EU under German law and in this context makes a concrete proposal for the implementation of article 15 into a revised article 1071 German Code of Civil Procedure.

• C. Heinze: “Beweissicherung im europäischen Zivilprozessrecht” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Measures to preserve evidence for judicial proceedings are of vital importance for any claimant trying to prove facts which are outside his own sphere of influence. The procedural laws in Europe differ in their approach to such measures: while some regard them as a form of provisional relief, others consider these measures to be part of the evidentiary proceedings before the court. In European law, evidence measures lie at the intersection of three different enactments of the Community, namely Regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 on cooperation between the courts of the Member States in the taking of evidence in civil or commercial matters, Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters and (in intellectual property disputes) Art. 7 of Directive 2004/48/EC on the enforcement of intellectual property rights. As a result of the European Court of Justice’s judgment in Case C-104/03, St. Paul Dairy Industries v. Unibel Exser BVBA, most commentators believe that evidence measures fall exclusively under the evidence regulation (EC) No 1206/2001 and not under the more general Brussels I Regulation (EC) No 44/2001. Taking into consideration the ECJ’s decision in St. Paul and the opinion of Advocate General Kokott in Case C-175/06, Alessandro Tedesco v. Tomasoni Fittings Srl and RWO Marine Equipment Ltd. (removed from register before judgment), the following article discusses the application of both regulations on measures to preserve evidence. It comes to the conclusion that measures to secure evidence fall under the evidence Regulation No 1206/2001 if they involve an act of judicial cognizance in taking evidence in another Member State which is directly relevant for the decision of the case (no fishing expedition). The article further proposes a supplementary application of the Brussels I Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 for those matters which are not covered by the evidence regulation.

Such matters firstly include the jurisdiction of the court requesting to take evidence, secondly the jurisdiction of the court where the evidence is located to secure this evidence if a party directly applies to that court without making use of the cross-border procedures of the evidence regulation, as well as the cross-border enforcement of substantive information rights without any act of judicial cognizance in the other Member State.

In those situations, it seems convincing to regard evidence measures which at least partially aim at securing evidence as a sub-category of provisional and protective measures and therefore apply the twofold system for provisional measures laid down in the van Uden judgment of the Luxembourg court (Case C-391/95, van Uden Maritime BV v. Kommanditgesellschaft in Firma Deco-Line and Another).

• U. Weinbörner: “Die Neustrukturierung und Aktualisierung des Länderteils der Rechtshilfeordnung für Zivilsachen (ZRHO)” – the English abstract reads as follows:

A statute has transferred matters of international judicial assistance in civil law to the Federal Office of Justice (BfJ) in Bonn. The BfJ is now also responsible for processing individual cases of reciprocal mutual assistance with other countries in civil, commercial and administrative matters. Accordingly, since January 1, 2007, the BfJ is also in charge of editing the foreign country section of the Civil Judicial Assistance Ordinance (ZRHO). This section is an administrative directive. It governs how reciprocity in mutual assistance proceedings takes place. The working directives of the ZRHO, which appear in a loose-leaf collection and are only updated once a year, are no longer up-to-date in many parts.

A Working Group (made up of representatives of the federal government and the German states) was established on the basis of a resolution by the 2007 Conference of Civil Representatives in Hamburg. Under the leadership of the BfJ, it has drawn up a new standardised structure for the foreign country section, which is intended to guide the user in a clear and easily understandable way and provides additional information in the explanations of the individual requests.

With the set-up of a procedure for permanent online updating, including the IR-online database of the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia, the backlog in updates can be dealt with and new information can be published quickly. The online offer portrayed below is produced by the BfJ and the Ministry of Justice of North Rhine-Westphalia. It reflects the agreement already achieved between the federal government and the German states concerning the instructions for specific countries. It can be used as a basis for the administrative orders of the foreign country section as a whole. The complete update will take at least another two years. That is due to two factors: the amount of work needed for the regular update of the information, and the re-structuring of the foreign country section.

• U. P. Gruber: “Die Brüssel IIa-VO und öffentlich-rechtliche Schutzmaßnahmen”
• A. Staudinger: “Gemeinschaftsrechtlicher Erfüllungsortgerichtsstand bei grenzüberschreitender Luftbeförderung”
• P. Schlosser: “Nichtanerkennung eines Schiedsspruchs mangels gültiger Schiedsvereinbarung”
• R. Geimer: “Enge Auslegung der Ausnahmeklausel des Art. 34 Nr. 2 EuGVVO – Der EuGH marginalisiert den ‘Federstrich’ des Reformgesetzgebers”
• H. Roth: “Zur verbleibenden Bedeutung der ordnungsgemäßen Zustellung bei Art. 34 Nr. 2 EuGVVO”
• E. Jayme/C. F. Nordmeier: “Multimodaler Transport: Zur Anknüpfung an den hypothetischen Teilstreckenvertrag im Internationalen Transportrecht – Ist § 452a HGB Kollisions- oder Sachnorm?”
• T. Domej: “Negative Feststellungsklagen im Deliktsgerichtsstand”
• P. Oberhammer/M. Slonina: “Konnexität durch Kompensation?”
• T. Struycken/B. Sujecki: “Das niederländische Gesetz zur Regelung des internationalen Sachenrechts” – the English abstract reads as follows:

On 1 May 2008, the new Dutch Act on Conflict of Laws in cases of Property (Wet Conflictenrecht Goederenrecht) came into force. This Act is the latest one in a series of legislative measures in the field of Private International Law in the Netherlands. In this Act the Dutch legislator incorporated the most important Dutch case law in the field of international property law. Additionally, some principle provisions were introduced which affect the classical topics in the field of international property law. This article will give a short overview of the key issues of this new Act.

Further, this issue contains the following materials:

• Niederlande: Gesetz vom 25.2.2008 über die Regelung des Kollisionsrechts der sachenrechtlichen Verhältnisse von Sachen, Forderung, Aktien sowie den Effektengiroverkehr (Gesetz über das Kollisionsrecht des Sachenrechts) Staatsblad 2008, Nr. 70

As well as the following information:

• M. Tamm: “Tagungsbericht zum Symposium anlässlich des 65. Geburtstags von Prof. Dr. Harald Koch – Thema: `Nationale und internationale Perspektiven für ein soziales Privat- und Prozessrecht`”
• H. Krüger: “Syrien: Neues Schiedsrecht”

 In Courtney v. Springfield (available here) the parties had cohabitated as a same-sex couple for nine years in the United Kingdom and the defendant had adopted two children (the couple could not legally adopt them as a couple).  The defendant separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and moved to Ontario with the children in 2007.  The plaintiff sought the return of the children, based on the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction.  She won: the court ordered the return of the children to the United Kingdom.

The case concerns the following issues: (a) did the plaintiff, who had not adopted the children, have “rights of custody” over the children; (b) was the plaintiff exercising those rights at the time of removal (since the parties had been separated for four years), (c) were there other reasons the court should nonetheless decline to order the return of the children.  The answers: yes, yes, and no.  The most complex analysis is on the first of these issues, and the case contains several interesting factual wrinkles.

The French Supreme Court for Private and Criminal Matters (Cour de cassation) handled an interesting decision earlier this year on lis pendens under Regulation 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 (Brussels IIbis).

In this case, two spouses initiated divorce proceedings in England and France the same day. The spouses were French nationals who had married in 1996 before moving to England in 2004 with their child (born in Japan). On March 24, 2005, the husband introduced an action in France under Article 3(b) of the Regulation (common nationality of the spouses). On the same day, the wife introduced an action in England under Article 3 (a) of the Regulation (habitual residence).

Which court, then, was to retain jurisdiction?

The wife provided evidence of the time when her husband was served with the English relevant documents: 12:30 pm, at his work place. French trial judges found that, by contrast, the husband was unable to provide evidence of the time when the French court had been seized.

In a judgment of 11 June 2008, the Cour de cassation held that he had the burden of proof, and that it was therefore for him to prove that the French court had been seized earlier than the foreign court on the relevant day. As a consequence, the court ruled that the English court had been seized first, and that the French court had been right to stay its proceedings.

In any case, in the meantime, the English High Court had actually ruled on the merits in a judgment of 13 July 2007. It seems that its jurisdiction was not challenged, as the defendant did not enter into appearance in England.

Impossible n’est pas francais 

Unlike other French proceedings, divorce proceedings are not initiated by serving the other party, but by filing with the court. In the present case, this raises two issues.

First, it is somewhat paradoxical to ask the husband to provide evidence to a court of the time when that court was seized. One would have hoped that the court would know. And it is even more paradoxical to tell him that he looses if he cannot bring such evidence.

Second, none of the French courts involved in that case cared for the fact that there was no mechanism to certify the time when the proceedings were filed. I suspect that the standard receipt mentions only the day. The argument was put forward that, as a consequence, parties in different states were not put on an equal footing. Indeed, if most French courts are unable to provide evidence of the time when they are seized, this will mean that other courts of the EU which can provide such evidence will always be seized first, at least from a French perspective.

T. Kruger, Civil Jurisdiction rules of the EU and their impact on third States, Oxford University Press, 2008, 442p.

This new publication by the South African author Dr Thalia Kruger examines the civil jurisdiction rules of the EU, contained in Council Regulations 44/2001 (Brussels I), 2201/2003 (Brussels IIbis), and 1346/2000 (Insolvency Regulation) through the lens of third States. The Regulations have been created for EU Member States and cases with elements in two or more of these States. However, in practice questions have arisen about which of the national civil jurisdiction rules can still be used when parties from third States are concerned. There were the cases of Turner, Owusu, and the Lugano Opinion, to mention just those that have reached the European Court of Justice. These cases have shown that the demarcation between EU law and national law in the sphere of civil jurisdiction is not always clear-cut.

The book is built around four cornerstones, which are used for the determination of the regulations’ applicability. The first is the defendant and his, her, or its domicile, nationality, habitual residence, or, in the case of the Insolvency Regulation, centre of main interests: what is the effect if that is in a third State? This part of the book also examines bases of jurisdiction linked to the place of the performance of a contract or the commission of a delict or tort and how the domicile of the defendant is relevant in finding whether or not the regulations should be applied. The second cornerstone is exclusive jurisdiction, such as that based on immoveable property. Here it is not some aspect of the defendant that determines applicability of the regulations, but rather the property or other exclusive element. The third cornerstone is the choice by the parties of where they want their dispute to be heard. The fourth cornerstone is a procedural one and deals with the rules of lis pendens, forum non conveniens, related actions, and anti-suit injunctions. The book concludes with recommendations for the amendment of Brussels I to take the situation of third States into account more explicitly.

This book is published in the Private International Law Series of Oxford University Press. It is a reworked version of Thalia Kruger’s PhD thesis, completed in 2005 at the Katholieke Universiteit Leuven under Professor Hans Van Houtte’s supervision.

The General Report of the Study on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the (former) 25 Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03) has recently been published:

“The Brussels I Regulation 44/2001
Application and Enforcement in the EU”
edited by Burkhard Hess, Thomas Pfeiffer and Peter Schlosser

The study has been conducted under the direction of Prof. Dr. Burkhard Hess, Prof. Dr. Thomas Pfeiffer (both Heidelberg) and Prof. Dr. Peter Schlosser (Munich) on behalf of the European Commission.

The report is based on interviews, statistics and practical research in the files of national courts and includes several recommendations with regard to a future improvement of the Regulation. In particular, the report proposes to delete the arbitration exception in Article 1 No. 2 (d) in order to bring ancillary proceedings relating to arbitration under the scope of the Brussels I Regulation which will be one of the topics discussed at the forthcoming Conference on Arbitration and EC Law taking place in Heidelberg from 5th to 6th December.

The Table of Contents is available here.

More information on the book can be found at the website of Hart Publishing as well as the Beck Verlag.

ISBN: 9781841139012; Sept 2008; 256pp; £66; US$138
Customers in the UK, Europe and Rest of World can place orders directly with Hart Publishing, Oxford, UK
Customers in the US can place orders with International Specialised Book Services, Portland, Oregon

See for more information on this study also our previous posts which can be found here , here and here.

Recently, the Festschrift in honor of Prof. Dr. Jan Kropholler titled

“Die richtige Ordnung
Festschrift für Jan Kropholler zum 70. Geburtstag”

(The Right Order. Festschrift for Jan Kropholler on his 70th birthday) edited by Dietmar Baetge, Jan von Hein and Michael von Hinden has been published.

The English abstract reads as follows:

The present collection of essays in honor of Jan Kropholler celebrates a scholar of international distinction who has exerted a decisive influence on the development of conflict of laws and the international unification of private law in the past decades. The volume contains contributions that span the whole range of Kropholler’s academic interests, from the harmonization of substantive private law to general questions of private international law, specific areas (family law, contracts, non-contractual obligations) and, in particular, international civil procedure. A recurrent theme is the rapidly growing Europeanization of these subjects.

The Festschrift includes the following contributions:

• Claus-Wilhelm Canaris: Teleologie und Systematik der Rücktrittsrechte nach dem BGB
• Axel Flessner: Friktionen zwischen der internationalen und der europäischen Vereinheitlichung des Privatrechts
• Herbert Kronke: Transnational Commercial Law: General Doctrines, Thirty Years On
• Stephan Lorenz und Frank Bauer: Rücktritt und Minderung bei erfolgreicher Nacherfüllung? Zugleich zur Gefahrtragung während der Nacherfüllung
• Dietmar Baetge: Auf dem Weg zu einem gemeinsamen europäischen Verständnis des gewöhnlichen Aufenthalts. Ein Beitrag zur Europäisierung des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts
• Peter Hay: Comments on Public Policy in Current American Conflicts Law
• Christian Heinze: Bausteine eines Allgemeinen Teils des europäischen Internationalen Privatrechts
• Karl Kreuzer: Gemeinschaftskollisionsrecht und universales Kollisionsrecht. Selbstisolation, Koordination oder Integration?
• Ralf Michaels: Die europäische IPR-Revolution. Regulierung, Europäisierung, Mediatisierung
• Thomas Pfeiffer: Hybride Rechtslagen. Zu den Strukturen des „internationalen Rechtsraums“
• Giesela Rühl: Rechtswahlfreiheit im europäischen Kollisionsrecht
• Kurt Siehr: Kollisionen des Kollisionsrechts
• Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger: Randbemerkungen zum Allgemeinen Teil eines europäisierten IPR
• Hans Stoll: Ausländische Vermögensstatute im deutschen internationalen Privatrecht
• Andreas Bucher: Das Kindeswohl im Haager Entführungsabkommen
• Anatol Dutta: Europäische Zuständigkeiten mit Kindeswohlvorbehalt
• Dieter Henrich: Ansprüche bei Auflösung einer nichtehelichen Lebensgemeinschaft in Fällen mit Auslandsberührung
• Erik Jayme: Zur Anerkennung einer deutschen Volljährigenadoption in Brasilien
• Dirk Looschelders: Scheidungsfreiheit und Schutz des Antragsgegners im internationalen Privat- und Prozessrecht
• Heinz-Peter Mansel: Zum Verhältnis von Vorfrage und Substitution. Am Beispiel einer unterhaltsrechtlichen Vorfrage des iranischen Scheidungsrechts
• Dieter Martiny: Auf dem Weg zu einem europäischen Internationalen Ehegüterrecht
• Jörg Pirrung: Auslegung der Brüssel IIa-Verordnung in Sorgerechtssachen – zum Urteil des EuGH in der Rechtssache C vom 27. 11. 2007
• Jürgen Samtleben: Ehetrennung als Ehescheidung – ein Fall der Substitution?
• Anton K. Schnyder und Pascal Grolimund: Erbschaft in der Schweiz – Grundstück im Ausland. Gedanken zu Art. 86 Abs. 2 IPRG
• Andrea Schulz: Das Haager Kindesentführungsübereinkommen und die Brüssel IIa-Verordnung. Notizen aus der Praxis
• Helmut Heiss: Versicherungsverträge in „Rom I“: Neuerliches Versagen des europäischen Gesetzgebers
• Abbo Junker: Internationalprivat- und -prozessrechtliche Fragen von Rumpfarbeitsverhältnissen
• Eva-Maria Kieninger: Der grenzüberschreitende Verbrauchervertrag zwischen Richtlinienkollisionsrecht und Rom I-Verordnung. Nach der Reform ist vor der Reform
• Lajos Vékás: Vertragsfreiheit versus Verbrauchervertragsrecht und Gleichbehandlungsgrundsatz. Aus der Sicht einer nationalen Privatrechtskodifikation
• Ulrich Drobnig: Die Kollisionsnormen des Legislative Guide for Secured Transactions von UNCITRAL (2007)
• Jan von Hein: Die Ausweichklausel im europäischen Internationalen Deliktsrecht
• Michael von Hinden: Ein europäisches Kollisionsrecht für die Medien. Gedanken zur Fortentwicklung der Rom II-Verordnung
• Ulrich Magnus: Probleme des internationalen Atomhaftungsrechts
• Yasuhiro Okuda: Arbeitnehmererfindungen im japanischen IPR
• Wulf-Henning Roth: Internationales Kartelldeliktsrecht in der Rom II-Verordnung
• Haimo Schack: Das auf (formlose) Immaterialgüterrechte anwendbare Recht nach Rom II
• Andreas Spickhoff: Die Produkthaftung im Europäischen Kollisions- und Zivilverfahrensrecht
• Ansgar Staudinger: Das Konkurrenzverhältnis zwischen dem Haager Straßenverkehrsübereinkommen und der Rom II-VO
• Rolf Wagner: Das Vermittlungsverfahren zur Rom II-VO
• Christa Jessel-Holst: Die grenzüberschreitende Herausverschmelzung von Aktiengesellschaften. Aktuelle Umsetzungsprobleme bei der Implementierung des acquis communautaire in Bulgarien und Rumänien.
• Dagmar Coester-Waltjen: Konnexität und Rechtsmissbrauch – zu Art. 6 Nr. 1 EuGVVO
• Robert Freitag: Anerkennung und Rechtskraft europäischer Titel nach EuVTVO, EuMahnVO und EuBagatellVO
• Reinhold Geimer: Forum Condefensoris
• Burkhard Hess: Die Europäische Kontenpfändung aus der Perspektive eines Europäischen Vollstreckungsrechts
• Gerhard Hohloch: Zur Bedeutung des Ordre public-Arguments im Vollstreckbarerklärungsverfahren
• Florian Jacoby: Öffentliche Zustellung statt Auslandszustellung? Kritische Anmerkungen zum Entwurf des § 185 Nr. 2 ZPO durch das MoMiG
• Peter Mankowski: Wie viel Bedeutung verliert die EuGVVO durch den Europäischen Vollstreckungstitel?
• Thomas Rauscher: Der Wandel von Zustellungsstandards zu Zustellungsvorschriften im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht
• Oliver Remien: Europäisches Kartellrecht (Artt. 81 f. EG-Vertrag) als Eingriffsnorm oder ordre public in neueren internationalen Schiedsrechtsfällen
• Herbert Roth: Das Konnexitätserfordernis im Mehrparteiengerichtsstand des Art. 6 Nr. 1 EuGVO
• Rolf A. Schütze: Forum non conveniens und Verbürgung der Gegenseitigkeit im deutsch-amerikanischen Verhältnis
• Gerhard Wagner und Christoph Thole: Die europäische Mediations-Richtlinie. Inhalt, Probleme und Umsetzungsperspektiven

More information can be found at the publisher’s website.

The fourteenth edition of one of the world’s leading texts on private international law has just been published. Professor James Fawcett has been elevated to the status of co-author, after twenty-one years at the editorial helm. Sir Peter North, who has been involved with the text since 1970, has handed over his responsibilities to Dr Janeen Carruthers for this edition (though North remains a Consultant Editor).

The publishers describe the new edition thus:

The new edition of this well-established and highly regarded work has been fully updated to encompass the major changes and developments in the law, including the newly finalised Rome II Regulation. The book is invaluable for the practitioner as well as being one of the leading students’ textbooks in the field, giving comprehensive and accessible coverage of the basic principles of private international law, a popular law school option.

It offers students, teachers and practitioners not only a rigorous academic examination of the subject, but also a practical guide to the complex subject of private international law. Written by academics who both previously worked as solicitors, there is extensive coverage of commercial topics such as the jurisdiction of various courts and their limitations, stays of proceedings and restraining foreign proceedings, the recognition and enforcement of judgments, the law of obligations with respect to contractual and non-contractual obligations. There are also sections on the various aspects of family law in private international law, and the law of property, including the transfer of property, administration of estates, succession and trusts.

ISBN: 978-0-19-928438-2. Price: £39.95 (paperback) or £95.00 (hardback). You can purchase the book from our secure, Amazon-powered bookstore in paperback or hardback, or from the OUP website. Stay tuned – a review of the book will follow here in the coming weeks.

Another new reference on the interpretation of the Brussels I Regulation has been referred to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling: The Landesgericht Feldkirch (Austria) has asked the following questions:

Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be interpreted as meaning that a social security institution, to which the claims of the directly injured party have passed by operation of law (Paragraph 332 of the Allgemeines Sozialversicherungsgesetz (General Social Insurance Law, ASVG)), may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the social security institution is established, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?

If the answer to Question 1 is in the affirmative: Does that jurisdiction exist even if at the time of bringing the action the directly injured party is not permanently or ordinarily resident in the Member State in which the social security institution is established?

Recently, the ECJ had already to deal with the interpretation of Art. 11(2) Brussels I in a different case: In C-463/06 (FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v. Jack Odenbreit) the ECJ held that

[t] he reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.

The difference with regard to the present case is that here the action is not brought by the directly injured party but rather by a social security institution, to which the claims of the directly injured party have passed by operation of law. Consequently the question arises whether the ECJ’s reasoning in case C-463/06 can be transferred to this situation.

This has been argued by the claimant in the main proceedings on the grounds that a social security institution to which the claims of the injured party have passed has to be qualified as “injured party” in terms of Art. 11 (2) Brussels I since “injured party” is everybody sustaining any disadvantages of rights, assets or physical integrity. This is – according to the claimant – the case since the claimant paid medical expenses and sickness benefits to the directly injured person. According to this point of view, the fact that two economically comparable insurance institutions are opposing each other does not preclude the application of Art. 11 (2) Brussels I.

This line of argument is disputed by the respondent party arguing that Artt. 11 (2), 9 Brussels I reflect the need to protect the economically weaker party. This, however, is – according to the defendant – in view of its economic situation not the case with regard to a social security institution, to which the claims of the directly injured party have passed by operation of law. Consequently, with regard to the question of international jurisdiction it is decisive where the directly injured party is domiciled.

According to the Landesgericht Feldkirch, the more persuasive arguments suggest that a social security institution, to which the claims of the directly injured party have passed by operation of law cannot bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the social security institution is established. However, since this particular question has not been answered by the ECJ so far, it referred the above cited questions for a preliminary ruling.

On 17 October 2008, the Dutch Supreme Court delivered a judgment in the case Baros A.G. (Switzerland) v. Embrica Maritim Hotelschiffe GmbH (Germany), concerning the application of Article 4 of the Rome Convention (Hoge Raad, 17 October 2008, No C07/084HR; LJN: BE7628). In 1998 Baros and Embrica concluded a “Bareboat-Chartervertrag” (rental agreement) concerning a hotel ship; the ship was located in Bremem (Germany) at that time, but was to be used for housing persons seeking asylum in the Netherlands. After termination of the contract in 2002, Embrica claimed damages in the amount of € 742.416,–, because the ship was not returned in the state it was when it was made available.

The Dutch Court of first instance dismissed the claim, but the Court of Appeal awarded a part of the claim. The applicable law was Dutch law, according to the Court. To this end the Court of Appeal stated that according to Article 4(2) of the Rome Convention the contract is presumed to be most closely connected to Germany, since the characteristic performer (Embrica) has its principal place of business in Germany. In line with the Dutch Supreme Court (Hoge Raad, 25 September 1992, No. 14556, NJ 1992, No. 750), the Court of Appeal further stated that article 4(2) of the Rome Convention constitutes the general rule, while Article 4(5) is the exception and should only be applied in exceptional circumstances, where the country where the party effecting the characteristic performance is situated has no real connecting value. The Court of Appeal decided that in this case the rental agreement did not have a real significant connection to Germany, since (a) the hotel ship was rented with the intention to use it as housing in a permanent location in the Netherlands, (b) the hotel ship had been connected to the shore with a jetty and a footbridge on a permanent basis, (c) the hotel ship was not intended or suited as a means of transport and cannot be moved without the assistance of a tugboat, (d) this was a continuing performance contract where Embrica had agreed to make the ship available in the Netherlands for rent, (e) Embrica was aware that Baros would not use the hotel ship himself, but would sublet it to a party situated in the Netherlands (National centre for support of persons seeking asylum), (f) the agreement stipulated that the return of the ship was to take place in the Netherlands. Therefore, the Court of Appeal concluded that Dutch law was applicable as the most closely connected law.

The Supreme Court, however, disagreed. It ruled that none of the grounds set out by the Court of Appeal could lead to the conclusion that Germany, as the principal place of business of the lessor (Embrica), has such an insignificant connection that it justifies departing from the general rule of Article 4(2) Rome Convention.

This ruling reaffirms the strict interpretation of Article 4(5) Rome Convention in the Netherlands. Further, it is in line with Article 4 of its successor, the Rome I Regulation, where the law of the habitual residence of the characteristic performer explicitly is the main rule, and may only be set aside where the contract is manifestly more closely connected to another country.