A very interesting volume, collecting the contributions presented by prominent European and Japanese scholars at a conference organised in 2007 by the Max Planck Institute for Private Law in Hamburg, has been recently published by Mohr Siebeck: Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective. A presentation of the book, and the TOC, are available on the MPI’s website:

Edited by Jürgen Basedow, Harald Baum und Yuko Nishitani, this conference volume is based on a symposium of the same name that was held in March 2007 at the MPI for Private Law in Hamburg and represents the first comprehensive analysis of the new Japanese private international law in any western language.

The idea of national codification is advancing on a global scale in conflict of laws. A large number of legislative projects dealing with codifying and modernizing private international law, both on the national and the supranational level, have been launched in the past few years. Among such recent initiatives, the advances taken by the European and the Japanese legislators are particularly reflecting these developments. On January 1, 2007, the new Japanese ‘Act on General Rules for Application of Laws’ entered into force replacing the outdated conflict of laws statute of 1898. This major reform finds its parallels in the current efforts of the European Union to create a modern private international law regime for its member states.

This volume presents the first comprehensive analysis of the new Japanese private international law available in any western language and contrasts it with corresponding European developments. Most of the contributors from Japan are scholars who were actively involved in and responsible for preparing the new Act. All of them are renowned experts in the field of private international law. Leading European experts in the conflict of laws supplement the Japanese analyses with comparative contributions reflecting the pertinent discussion of parallel endeavours in the EU. To guarantee better understanding, English translations of both the present and the former Japanese statutes have been added.

Table of Contents:

I. General Introduction
Jürgen Basedow: The Recent Development of the Conflict of Laws – Trevor C Hartley: The Brussels Regulation and Non-Community States – Masato Dogauchi: Historical Development of Japanese Private International Law – Hironori Wanami: Background and Outline of the Modernization of Japanese Private International Law

II. Contractual Obligations
Yuko Nishitani: Party Autonomy and Its Restrictions by Mandatory Rules in Japanese Private International Law – Catherine Kessedjian: Party Autonomy and Characteristic Performance in the Rome Convention and the Rome I Proposal – Fausto Pocar: Protection of Weaker Parties in the Rome Convention and the Rome I Proposal

III. Assignment of Receivables
Aki Kitazawa: Law Applicable to the Assignment of Receivables in Japan (Nihon ni okeru saiken jôto no junkyo-hô) – Eva-Maria Kieninger: General Principles on the Law Applicable to the Assignment of Receivables in Europe

IV. International Company Law
Dai Yokomizo: International Company Law in Japan – Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto: International Company Law in the ECJ Decisions – Daniel Zimmer: The Proposal of the Deutscher Rat für Internationales Privatrecht

V. Non-Contractual Obligations
Toshiyuki Kono: Critical and Comparative Analysis of the Rome II Regulation on Applicable Laws to Non-contractual Obligations and the New Private International Law in Japan – Thomas Kadner Graziano: General Principles of Private International Law of Tort in Europe – Marc Fallon: The Law Applicable to Specific Torts in Europe

VI. International Family Law
Yasuhiro Okuda: Divorce, Protection of Minors, and Child Abduction in Japan’s Private International Law – Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg: Jurisdiction and Applicable Law in Cross-Border Divorce Cases in Europe – Alegría Borrás: Protection of Minors and Child Abduction under the Hague Conventions and the Brussels II bis Regulation

VII. International Civil Procedure Law
Yoshihisa Hayakawa: International Adjudicative Jurisdiction in Japan – Dieter Martiny: Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Germany and Europe

Annex I
Major European Community Legislation in Private International Law

Annex II
Japanese Legislation in Private International Law

Title: Japanese and European Private International Law in Comparative Perspective, edited by Jürgen Basedow, Harald Baum, and Yuko Nishitani, Mohr Siebeck (Materialien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht/48), Tübingen, March 2008, XVIII + 434 pages.

ISBN: 978-3-16-149547-2. Price: euro 89.

The first issue of French Journal du Droit International (also known as Clunet) will be released shortly. It contains four articles dealing with conflict issues.

The first is authored by Pascal de Vareilles-Sommieres, who teaches at Paris I University, and Anwar Fekini, who is a practising lawyer in Paris and Tripoli. It discusses The New International Oil Exploration and Sharing Agreements in Libya (Les nouveaux contrats internationaux d’exploration et de partage de production pétrolière en Libye. Problèmes choisis). The English abstract reads:

The article intends to study the legal regime of the exploration and production sharing agreements (EPSAs) entered into by the Libyan National Oil Company with foreign oil companies since 2005. In this first part, the authors focus on legal sources governing Libyan EPSAs. Though admitting the prominent part of Libyan law chosen by the parties in a choice of law provision among these sources, the authors wonder whether the parties simultaneously intended to get other possible legal sources combined with it. A possible choice of public international law is first examined. Scrutinising the parties intention, the article comes to the conclusion that no sign pointing to an internationalisation of the EPSAs appears in the agreements. As a consequence, international contract law is not to be combined with Libyan law as far as the legal regime of the EPSAs is concerned. The study then looks for possible hints of the parties intention to get the lex mercatoria involved in the regulation of their agreement along with Libyan law. Several signs are brought to the light showing the parties’ common intention to let international trade usages interfere with Libyan law to be combined with it in order to finally make up the lex contractus.

The second part of this study will be published this year in a forthcoming issue of this Journal.

The second article is a study of the Rome II Regulation (Le règlement (CE) n° 864/2007 du 11 juillet 2007 sur la loi applicable aux obligations non contractuelles (« Rome II »)). It is authored by Carine Briere, who lectures at Rouen University. Here is the English abstract:

The aim of this article is to present Regulation (EC) n° 864/2007 known as « Rome II », which is the result of a long process of elaboration. Codecision procedure has been used to adopt this text which harmonises rules of conflict of laws regarding noncontractual obligations to improve predictability concerning the law applicable. It constitutes a new step towards the construction of a private international community law. The Regulation follows current private international law trends that give competence to the law of the country in which the damage arises. Nevertheless, an escape clause introduces a flexible approach when the lex loci damni seems to be inappropriate. Specific rules for certain torts and restitutionary obligations are also laid down. They derogate the general rule. Moreover, the Regulation upholds in an extensive way the choice of law principle and determines the link with other norms such as the Hague Conventions on which it does not take precedence.

However, this Regulation, adopted in order to facilitate correct workings of the internal market, shall not prejudice the application of internal market legislation.

The third article from Moustapha Lô Diatta from HEI in Geneva presents the Evolution of Bilateral Treaties on Migratory Workers (L’évolution des accords bilatéraux sur les travailleurs migrants). The abstract reads:

Bilateral labour agreements represent not only the oldest but also the most important source of international migrant workers law. Since their appearance in earlier twentieth century, they have been changing at contracting parties’ will, by reference to the political and economic context, the developments of international labour migration and the progress made by international legislation in protecting migrant workers. The purpose of this study is to show to what extent the lessons that can be drawn from this evolution could contribute to the ongoing debate and consultations within the international bodies to establish a multilateral framework in which international labour migration would be mutually beneficial.

Finally, Philippe Roussel Galle from Dijon University presents a Few Ideas on the Interpretation of Regulation 1346/2000 on Insolvency Proceedings after the French Circular of 15 December 2006 (De quelques pistes d’interprétation du règlement
(CE) n° 1346/2000 sur les procédures d’insolvabilité : la circulaire du 15 décembre 2006).

The entry into force of law n° 2005-845 of 26 July 2005 which institutes, among other things, a safeguard procedure, combined with the first court decisions enforcing regulation (EC) n° 1346/2000 on insolvency proceedings, have lead the French Ministry of Justice to repel and replace the circular of 17 March 2003 regarding the implementation of the regulation. The new circular, enacted on December 15th 2006, gives precisions and interpretation guidelines on the European text and brings, notwithstanding sovereign judicial appreciation, solutions to the difficulties its implementation might create in France.

It has been a little while since my last trawl through the law journals, and a few articles and casenotes have been published in the intervening period that private international law enthusiasts may wish to add to their reading list:

J.M. Carruthers, “De Facto Cohabitation: the International Private Law Dimension” (2008) 12 Edinburgh Law Review 51 – 76.

P. Beaumont & Z. Tang, “Classification of Delictual Damages – Harding v Wealands and the Rome II Regulation” (2008) 12 Edinburgh Law Review 131 – 136.

G. Ruhl, “Extending Ingmar to Jurisdiction and Arbitration Clauses: The End of Party Autonomy in Contracts with Commercial Agents?” (2007) 6 European Review of Private Law 891 – 903. An abstract:

In the judgment discussed below, the Appeals Court of Munich (OLG München) deals with the question whether jurisdiction and arbitration clauses have to be set aside in the light of the Ingmar decision of the European Court of Justice where they cause a derogation from Articles 17 and 18 of the Commercial Agents Directive. The Court concludes that this question should be answered in the affirmative if it is ‘likely’ that the designated court or arbitral tribunal will neither apply Articles 17 and 18 nor compensate the commercial agent on different grounds. Thus, the Court advocates that Articles 17 and 18 be given extensive protection. This is, however, problematic because such extensive protection imposes serious restrictions on party autonomy, whereas these restrictions are not required by Community law in general or by the principle of effectiveness in particular. Therefore, it is very much open to doubt whether this decision is in the best interests of the Internal Market.

F. Bolton & R. Radia, “Restrictive covenants: foreign jurisdiction clauses” (2008) 87 Employment Law Journal 12 – 14. The abstract:

Reviews the Queen’s Bench Division judgment in Duarte v Black and Decker Corp and the Court of Appeal decision in Samengo-Turner v J&H Marsh & McLennan (Services) Ltd on whether restrictive covenants were enforceable under foreign jurisdiction clauses contained in the long-term incentive plan agreements of UK domiciled employees of multinational companies. Examines the conflict of laws and whether English law applied under the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 Art.16 and under Regulation 44/2001 Arts.18 and 20.

W. Tetley, “Canadian Maritime Law” L.M.C.L.Q. 2007, 3(Aug) Supp (International Maritime and Commercial Law Yearbook 2007), 13-42. The blurb:

Reviews Canadian case law and legislative developments in shipping law in 2005 and 2006, including cases on: (1) carriage of goods by sea; (2) fishing regulations; (3) lease of port facilities; (4) sale of ships; (5) personal injury; (6) recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; (7) shipping companies’ insolvency; (8) collision; and (9) marine insurance.

S. James, “Decision Time Approaches – Political agreement on Rome I: will the UK opt back in?” (2008) 23 Butterworths Journal of International Banking & Financial Law 8. The abstract:

Assesses the extent to which European Commission proposed amendments to the Draft Regulation on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) meet the concerns of the UK financial services industry relating to the original proposal. Notes changes relating to discretion and governing law, assignment and consumer contracts.

A. Onetto, “Enforcement of foreign judgments: a comparative analysis of common law and civil law” (2008) 23 Butterworths Journal of International Banking & Financial Law 36 – 38. The abstract:

Provides an overview of the enforcement of foreign judgments in common law and civil law jurisdictions by reference to a scenario involving the enforcement of an English judgment in the US and Argentina. Reviews the principles and procedures applicable to the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in the US and Argentina respectively, including enforcement expenses and legal fees. Includes a table comparing the procedures for the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in California, Washington DC and New York.

J. Carp, “I’m an Englishman working in New York” (2008) 152 Solicitors Journal 16 – 17. The abstract:

Reviews case law on issues arising where a national of one country works in another country. Sets out a step by step approach to ascertaining: the law governing the employment contract; the applicability of mandatory labour laws, including cases on unfair dismissal, discrimination, working time, and the transfer of undertakings; which country has jurisdiction; and public policy. Offers practical suggestions for drafting multinational contracts.

J. Murphy – O’Connor, “Anarchic and unfair? Common law enforcement of foreign judgments in Ireland” 2007 2 Bankers’ Law 41 – 44. Abstract:

Discusses the Irish High Court judgment in Re Flightlease (Ireland) Ltd (In Voluntary Liquidation) on whether, in the event that the Swiss courts ordered the return of certain monies paid by a Swiss airline, in liquidation, to an Irish company, also in liquidation, such order would be enforceable in Ireland. Considers whether: (1) the order would be excluded from enforcement under the common law on the basis that it arose from a proceeding in bankruptcy or insolvency; and (2) the order would be recognised on the basis of a “real and substantial connection” test, rather than traditional conflict of laws rules.

V. Van Den Eeckhout, “Promoting human rights within the Union: the role of European private international law” 2008 14 European Law Journal 105 – 127. The abstract:

This article aims to contribute both to the ‘Refgov’ project, which is focused on the ambition to find ways of promoting human rights within the EU, but also, more in general and apart from the project, to an improved understanding of the crucial place conflict of law rules occupy in the building of a common Europe—a highly political question behind apparently technical issues. In the study the author deals with the parameters, points of interest, etc in relation to private international law which should be heeded if European Member States ‘look at’ each other’s laws, and—in the context of the ‘Refgov’ project—if the idea is to exchange ‘best practices’ or harmonise substantive law, or to harmonise private international law, etc further through a type of open method of coordination. The contribution also shows that private international law issues are decisive in respect of every evaluation of the impact of European integration on human rights, both if this integration process takes place through ‘negative’ harmonisation (for example by falling back on the principle of mutual recognition) and through ‘positive’ harmonisation.

R. Swallow & R. Hornshaw, “Jurisdiction clauses in loan agreements: practical considerations for lenders” (2007) 1 Bankers’ Law 18 – 22. Abstract:

Assesses the implications for borrowers and lenders of the Commercial Court judgment in JP Morgan Europe Ltd v Primacom AG on whether proceedings brought in Germany challenging the validity a debt facility agreement were to be treated as the first seised under Regulation 44/2001 Art.27 (Brussels I Regulation), despite the fact that the agreement contained an exclusive jurisdiction clause in favour of the English courts. Advises lenders on the drafting of loan agreements to help mitigate the risk of a jurisdiction clause being frustrated. Considers the steps that might be taken by the lender once a dispute has arisen.

A. Dutton, “Islamic finance and English law” (2007) 1 Bankers’ Law 22 – 25. Abstract:

Reviews cases relating to Islamic finance, including: (1) the Commercial Court decision in Islamic Investment Co of the Gulf (Bahamas) Ltd v Symphony Gems NV on whether the defendant was liable to make payments under a Sharia compliant contract governed by English law that would contravene Sharia law; (2) the Court of Appeal ruling in Shamil Bank of Bahrain EC v Beximco Pharmaceuticals Ltd (No.1) interpreting a choice of law clause expressed as English law “subject to the principles” of Sharia law; and (3) the Commercial Court judgment in Riyad Bank v Ahli United Bank (UK) Plc on whether the defendant owed a duty of care to a Sharia compliant fund where it had contracted directly with its parent bank.

J. Burke & A. Ostrovskiy, “The intermediated securities system: Brussels I breakdown” (2007) 5 European Legal Forum 197 – 205. Abstract:

Presents a hypothetical case study of a dispute arising from a cross-border securities transaction involving parties from the UK, Sweden and Finland to examine the application of the private international law regime under Regulation 44/2001 Art.5(1) (Brussels I Regulation), the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 Art.4 (Rome Convention) and the Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Certain Rights in Respect of Securities Held with an Intermediary. Considers the extent to which commercial developments in the securities industry have outstripped the current conflicts of law rules.

M. Requejo, “Transnational human rights claims against a state in the European Area of Freedom, Justice and Security: a view on ECJ judgment, 15 February 2007 – C292/05 – Lechouritou, and some recent Regulations” (2007) 5 European Legal Forum 206 – 210. Abstract:

Comments on the European Court of Justice ruling in Lechouritou v Germany (C-292/05) on whether a private action for compensation brought against Germany with respect to human rights abuses committed by its armed forces during its occupation of Greece in the Second World War fell within the scope of the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters 1968 Art.1, thus preventing the defendant from claiming immunity for acts committed during armed conflict. Examines the EC and US jurisprudential context for such private damages claims.

L. Osana, “Brussels I Regulation Article 5(3): German Law Against Restrictions on Competition” (2007) 5 European Legal Forum 211 – 212. Abstract:

Summarises the Hamburg Court of Appeal decision in Oberlandesgericht (Hamburg) (1 Kart-U 5/06) on whether the German courts had jurisdiction under Regulation 44/2001 Art.5(3) (Brussels I Regulation) to order a German tour operator not to incite Spanish hotels to refuse to supply contingents to a competitor German tour operator, behaviour that had been found to be anti-competitive.

C. Tate, “American Forum Non Conveniens in Light of the Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements” (2007) 69 University of Pittsburgh Law Review 165 – 187.

E. Costa, “European Union: litigation – applicable law” (2008) 19 International Company and Commercial Law Review 7 – 10. Abstract:

Traces the history of how both the Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations 1980 (Rome I) and Regulation 864/2007 (Rome II) became law. Explains how Rome II regulates disputes involving non-contractual obligations and determines the applicable law. Notes areas where Rome II does not apply, and looks at the specific example of how Rome II would regulate a dispute involving product liability, including the habitual residence test.

E.T. Lear, “National Interests, Foreign Injuries, and Federal Forum Non Conveniens” (2007) 41 University of California Davis Law Review 559 – 604 [Full Text Here]. Abstract:

This Article argues that the federal forum non conveniens doctrine subverts critical national interests in international torts cases. For over a quarter century, federal judges have assumed that foreign injury cases, particularly those filed by foreign plaintiffs, are best litigated abroad. This assumption is incorrect. Foreign injuries caused by multinational corporations who tap the American market implicate significant national interests in compensation and/or deterrence. Federal judges approach the forum non conveniens decision as if it were a species of choice of law, as opposed to a choice of forum question. Analyzing the cases from an adjudicatory perspective reveals that in the case of an American resident plaintiff injured abroad, an adequate alternative forum seldom exists; each time a federal court dismisses such a claim, the American interest in compensation is irrevocably impaired. With respect to deterrence, an analysis focusing properly on adjudicatory factors demonstrates that excluding foreign injury claims, even those brought by foreign plaintiffs, seriously undermines our national interest in deterring corporate malfeasance.

I am sure that I have missed various articles or case comments published in the last couple of months. If you spot any that are not on this list (or, even better, if you have written one and it is not on this list), please let me know.

An interesting annotation by Angelika Fuchs on the decision of the German Federal Supreme Court asking the European Court of Justice for a preliminary ruling on the interpretation of Article 11 (2) and Article 9 (1) (b) of Regulation No 44/2001/EC has been published in the latest issue of the German legal journal Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts (IPRax 2007, 302 et seq.).

The facts of the case are as follows: The claimant, who is habitually resident in Germany, suffered an accident in the Netherlands and brought a direct action in Germany against the other party’s insurer the latter of which is domiciled in the Netherlands. Here the question arose whether German courts have international jurisdiction for this claim on the basis of Articles 11(2), 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation.

This question was answered in the negative by the first instance court (Amtsgericht Aachen) dismissing the action on the grounds that German courts lacked international jurisdiction. However, the court of appeal (Oberlandesgericht Köln) held in an interim judgment that the action was admissible. The case was subsequently referred to the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) which pointed out that the crucial question was whether the injured party can be regarded as a “beneficiary” in terms of Article 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation or whether the term “beneficiary” refers only to the beneficiary of the insurance contract (this has been so far the point of view of the prevailing opinion in German doctrine). In the latter case, the injured party could not sue the insurer at his/her (i.e. the injured party’s) domicile.

One of the main arguments in favour of the jurisdiction of the courts at the injured party’s domicile is Recital 16a of Directive 2000/26/EC which has been suggested in Directive 2005/14/EC and reads as follows:

Under Article 11(2) read in conjunction with Article 9(1)(b) 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, injured parties may bring legal proceedings against the civil liability insurance provider in the Member State in which they are domiciled.

Even though the Supreme Court attached some importance to this recital, the Court had nevertheless doubts whether an autonomous and uniform interpretation of the rules in question was possible on this basis. Thus, the Federal Supreme Court referred with judgment of 26 September 2006 the following question – its first on the Brussels I Regulation – to the ECJ:

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 understood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?

Fuchs examines in her annotation whether the well-established methods of interpretation militate in favour of the jurisdiction of the courts in the State where the injured party is domiciled and argues that the wording of Articles 11(2), 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation does not support the assumption of jurisdiction since – while the injured party is referred to in Article 11 (2) – this is not the case in Article 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation. In her opinion also a historic interpretation does not lead to another result since the Jenard Report illustrated that a forum actoris of the injured party was not intended. This situation had not been altered in the course of the communitarisation of the Brussels Convention. With regard to teleologic arguments, Fuchs states first that there was no need to protect the injured party by admitting direct actions before the courts of his/her domicle and secondly that this additional head of jurisdiction might have undesirable consequences such as forum shopping or a race to the court. With regard to a systematic interpretation she refers inter alia, in addition to the mentioned Recital 16a of Directive 2000/26/EC (which, however, is not regarded as a conclusive argument), to the Rome II Regulation. Here a special rule for traffic accidents had been discussed – but not been accepted (see for the adopted version of Rome II our older post which can be found here). Thus, according to Fuchs only the systematic argument which is based on an analogous application of Article 9 (1) (b) Brussels I Regulation might be used – notwithstanding substantial reservations – in favour of admitting direct actions before the courts of the injured party’s domicile.

The referring decision can be found (in German) at the Federal Supreme Court’s website. See with regard to the reference also our older post which can be found here.

Book review of Peter Stone, EU Private International Law Harmonisation of Laws [Elgar European Law, Cheltenham, 2006, lvi+462pp, ISBN 1-84542-015-2]. (Reviewed by Dr Lorna Gillies, Leicester)

This book is part of a series collection on European Law by Edward Elgar Publishing. According to the blurb, the book offers a “critical assessment of four main areas of concern: civil jurisdiction and judgments; the law applicable to civil obligations ; family law ; and insolvency.” The premise of the text is the development of EU international private law rules from Article 95 EC. For the first time, principles of international private law are analysed, considered and presented in the context of EU law. This is one of the key strengths of the book. The book will be of particular interest to academics, practitioners and postgraduate students. Whilst a number of key EU proposals had yet (and still remain) to be finalised when the book was written, this book is nevertheless of significant and relevant interest to the target audience. Whilst the author admittedly does not consider in depth the proposals for the Rome I or II regulations, a further strength of the book is the inclusion of the author’s proposed new articles of these instruments in, most often, his concluding analysis of current instruments. Furthermore, the book also makes reference to the EU accession to the Hague Conference on Private International Law.

The book contains detailed case tables of UK, EU Member State and ECJ cases as well as an international case section listing cases from Singapore and the United States. The table of cases also conveniently provides particular page references throughout the text. Mirroring the influence of EU policy, the book is divided into an introduction and four substantive parts comprising nineteen chapters. Part I contains the introduction which succinctly considers the basis for harmonisation of international private law rules (ie those on civil jurisdiction, choice of law, family law and insolvency) at EU level.

Part II is the largest part of the book and focuses, not surprisingly, on civil jurisdiction and judgments across nine chapters. The main focus of the text in this Chapter is, as expected, Regulation 44/2001. A historical assessment of the changes from the Brussels Convention 1968 to the final version of the Regulation is provided. The Chapter consider the application of English cases with frequent reference to ECJ cases. At the end of Chapter Two there is a helpful table providing all of the commencement dates for the Brussels and Lugano Conventions and Regulation 44/2001. Chapter Three focuses on domicile as the connecting factor in the Brussels Convention and Regulation 44/2001. This Chapter usefully considers the concept of domicile and the application of the concept vis-à-vis local, other European and external (ie non EU) defendants. Chapter Four then considers the alternative grounds of jurisdiction in Regulation 44/2001 and assesses the changes to Article 5 in particular. The author assesses the merits of Article 5(1) and comments on the possible reform of Article 5(3). Unlike many other texts on international private law, a strength of this book is that it offers a separate chapter on the jurisdiction rules for protected contracts, namely consumer, employment and insurance contracts. The jurisdictional and governing laws of such contracts are becoming increasingly important as (the (would-be) “reasonably informed and circumspect”) consumers purchase goods and services from sellers in different jurisdictions and as employees move between (an ever increasing number of) Member States to seek work. This text is different to other international private law texts as it recognises the legal and commercial importance of such (supposedly minor) contracts to EU policy and the application of international private law rules in the day-to-day lives of ordinary EU citizens. As one would expect, there are also chapters on the rules on exclusive jurisdiction, submission and concurrent proceedings. The latter contains an interesting and reflective analysis of the recent cases Gasser v MISAT and Turner v Grovit. There is also a shorter chapter on provisional measures. The final two chapters in this Part provide an assessment of the rules on recognition and enforcement and enforcement procedure. These succinct chapters provide key summaries of the relevant case law plus, in respect of enforcement an analysis of Regulation 805/2004, the European Enforcement Order for Uncontested Claims.

Part II of the book focuses on the law applicable to civil obligations. Part II contains four chapters which focus on contracts, protected contracts (mirroring Part I), torts and restitution. The main focus on Chapter Twelve is the replacement of the Rome Convention 1980. Regular reference is made in this Part to the proposals for the Rome I Regulation. The basis of the Rome Convention is considered as is its application and relationship with other conventions. The author does comment on the Green Paper which considered the replacement of the Rome Convention with a Community Instrument. The author recommends the further clarification of the rules governing implied choice of law by the inclusion of a range of factors in Article 3(1A) with the emphasis on establishing the commercial expectations of the parties. Articles 3 and 4 of the Rome Convention are considered in depth. The case is then put by the author for possible reform thereof. Importantly, the author devotes Chapter Thirteen separately to protected contracts, in recognition of the important and difficult task in reconciling party autonomy in selecting the governing law with the overriding need to protect consumers, employees and insured parties. The author provides commentary on the replacement of the Rome Convention with the Rome I Regulation and in concluding his analysis suggests in particular, a revised Article 5. On the matter of insurance contracts, Chapter Thirteen assesses and considers possible reform of Directives 88/357 and 90/619 on non-life and life insurance contracts respectively. Chapters Fourteen and Fifteen are devoted to the proposal for the Rome II Regulation. Chapter Fourteen considers the proposed Regulation vis-à-vis torts in depth, including, inter alia, its scope and relationship with other international convention. This Chapter also offers critical assessment and suggested amendments to, inter alia, Articles 3(2) and (3) and analysis of a number of specific torts including product liability, unfair competition, intellectual property, defamation, environmental damage, industrial disputes and traffic accidents. Chapter Fifteen provides a concise analysis of the proposals in Rome II vis-à-vis claims in restitution.

Part III of the book contains three, and by comparison shorter, chapters on family matters comprising matrimonial proceedings, parental responsibility and familial maintenance and matrimonial property. Part III of the book focuses on Regulations 1347/2000 (Brussels II) and 2201/2003 (Brussels IIA). Chapter Sixteen includes a table on the transitional operation of these two regulations amongst the Member States. Chapter Seventeen examines parental responsibility and contrasts the Brussels IIA Regulation with the Hague Convention 1996 on Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and the 1980 Child Abduction Convention.

The final part of the book, Part IV, is on the matter of insolvency. Chapter nineteen examines the jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement aspects of insolvency as contained in Regulation 1346/2000. A noticeable feature of this Chapter is the author’s criticism of the rational for secondary proceedings and his suggestion for harmonisation of “the substantive laws of the Member States as regards the definition and extent of preferential rights […] by means of a directive under Article 95 EC.”

In conclusion, this book is warmly welcomed and will be an important research resource to its readership. Purchase the book from here or direct form the CONFLICT OF LAWS .NET bookshop.

The symposium is organized by the Unité de droit international privé of the ULB (Université Libre de Bruxelles) in the framework of the project on “Judicial Cooperation in Matters of Intellectual Property and Information Technology”, co-financed by the European Commission, and will take place in Brussels on Friday, March 2^nd 2007.

It is a follow-up to an earlier roundtable, held in Heidelberg in late 2006 (a background paper prepared for the Heidelberg meeting can be found here; other interesting preliminary documents dealing with specific topics are available here). As stated on the symposium programme, a number of key issues related to cross-border IP litigation will be addressed, in the light of recent case-law of the European Court of Justice (GAT and Roche judgments, on which a number of recent posts can be found on our website) and legislative proposals (Rome II Regulation):

How should the applicable procedural framework be organized to guarantee at the same time an effective protection of intellectual property rights and legal certainty? Which court has jurisdiction to entertain actions relating to foreign rights and/or relating to infringements perpetrated trough the internet? Is it still possible to consolidate proceedings relating to parallel IP rights after the decisions of the European Court of Justice in the GAT and Roche cases? What are the means to collect evidence located abroad in cross-border IP cases? What is the role and scope of preliminary and protective measures in IP international litigation?

For the full programme, the complete list of speakers and further information (including registration, free for students), see the project website and the downloadable leaflet.

To celebrate the 25th anniversary of the German legal journal "IPRax" (Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts), a conference took place in Regensburg from 20th to 21st January 2006, where current questions of private international law and international civil procedure law were discussed.

A talk was given by Prof. Dr. W.-H. Roth, (Bonn) who addressed inter alia the question whether primary EU law contains conflict of law rules and whether the principle of mutual recognition can be deduced from the fundamental freedoms. Further he attended – as Prof. Dr. D. Coester-Waltjen did- to the question whether the principle of mutual recognition might be regarded as a corrective of private international law rules.

Prof. Dr. B. Hess (Heidelberg) attended to European civil procedure law and in particular to the methods of interpretation used by the ECJ. He stressed the significance of autonomous interpretation which can be regarded as the most important method of interpretation. While the importance of the comparative interpretation was decreasing, the relevance of a systematical – teleological interpretation was increasing. Further, he favoured a resumption of the ratification process concerning the European Constitution. He argued the entry into force of the Charter for Fundamental Rights would strengthen a constitutional interpretation.

Prof. Dr. S. Leible (Bayreuth) analysed in his speech the relationship between European private international law and European civil procedure rules using the example of the proposal for Rome I and Regulation 44/01/EC with regard to cross-border consumer contracts. He concluded that Rome I will create a very welcome synchronism between jurisdiction and applicable law concerning international consumer contracts.

Prof. Dr. G. Wagner (Bonn) talked about the future Rome II Regulation and drew on the one hand a comparison between the two proposals for a Rome II Regulation (Commission´s proposal and the Parliament´s proposal) and on the other hand a comparison between these proposals and autonomous German law.

And finally Prof. Dr. D. Coester-Waltjen (Munich) addressed in her speech the principle of mutual recognition – in particular in the context of family law. She discussed – after giving a definition of the term “principle of mutual recognition” – especially potential problems such as the question whether only official or also private acts could be recognized. Further, she attended to the embedding of the principle of mutual recognition in international conventions and asked whether the principle of mutual recognition can be derived from European primary or secondary law. Finally she gave guidelines how arising problems could be handled and classified the principle of mutual recognition within the context of private international law methods.

The mentioned speeches as well as short summaries of the respective discussions (in German) can be found in (2006) 4 IPRax.

The latest issue of the „Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts“ (IPRax) features the following articles:

Erik  Jayme †

T. Lutzi: Unilateralism as a structural principle of the Digital Single Market?

While the body of instruments through which the European legislator aims to create a Digital Single Market keeps growing, it remains strangely devoid of multilateral conflicts rules. Instead, directives in this area usually contain no conflict-of-laws provisions at all, while regulations limit themselves to a unilateral definition of their territorial scope of application. As the instruments do not regulate the matters falling into their material scope of application conclusively, though, they continue to rely on, and interact with, national systems of private law. The existing, general conflict-of-laws rules do not coordinate between these systems satisfactorily. In order to realise a genuine Digital Single Market with uniform standards of liability, specific universal conflicts rules thus seem indispensable

L. Theimer: The last arrow in the English courts’ quiver? ‘Quasi-anti-suit injunctions’ and damages for breach of exclusive choice of court agreements

This article analyses the last instance of failed integration of English common law instruments into the jurisdictional system of the Brussels regime. In its decision in Charles Taylor Adjusting, the ECJ held that decisions granting provisional damages for bringing proceedings in another Member State, where the subject matter of those proceedings is covered by a settlement agreement and the court before which proceedings were brought does not have jurisdiction on the basis of an exclusive choice of court agreement, are contrary to public policy under Art 34 (no 1) and Art 45(1) Brussels I Regulation. More specifically, they violate the principle of mutual trust by reviewing the jurisdiction of a court of another Member State and interfering with its jurisdiction. Such decisions also undermine access to justice for persons against whom they are issued. By and large, the decision merits approval as it unmasks the English decisions as “quasi-anti-suit injunctions” which are incompatible with the Brussels Regulation, just like their “real” siblings, anti-suit injunctions. The ECJ’s analysis is, however, not in all respects compelling, particularly with regard to the point of reviewing another court’s jurisdiction. Moreover, the Court’s and the Advocate General’s reluctance to engage with the English view on the issue is regrettable. In conclusion, the ECJ’s decision may well – in terms of EU law – have broken the last arrow in the English courts’ quiver. It is unlikely, however, that English courts will be overly perturbed by this, considering that, following Brexit, their arsenal is no longer constrained by EU law.

W. Hau: The required cross-border implication in Article 25 Brussels I Regulation: prerequisite for application or measure against abuse?

It has long been debated whether two parties domiciled in the same Member State can agree on the jurisdiction of the courts of another Member State pursuant to Art. 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation if, apart from this agreement, the facts of the case have no other cross-border implications. The ECJ has now convincingly answered this question in the affirmative. This ruling provides an opportunity to take a closer look at the function of the requirement of an international element in the context of Art. 25 Brussels Ibis Regulation and some questionable arguments that are derived from other legal instruments.

A. Hemler: The “consumer jurisdiction of the joinder of parties” in the Brussels Ia Regulation and the comparison between the law applicable to consumer contracts and other contracts in the Rome I Regulation

In the cases Club La Costa and Diamond Resorts, Spanish courts referred various questions to the ECJ on timeshare contracts between consumers and businesses residing in the UK concerning the right to use holiday accommodations in Spain. In Club La Costa, the ECJ primarily discussed whether the consumer jurisdiction of Art 18(1) Brussels Ia Regulation permits an action in front of Spanish courts against the consumer’s contractual partner if the latter is not established in Spain and if the co-defendant, who is only connected to the consumer via an ancillary contractual relationship, has a registered office in Spain. In both proceedings, the question also arose as to whether the law applicable under the general rules of Art 3, 4 Rome I Regulation can be applied instead of the law applicable under Art 6 Rome I Regulation if the former is more favourable to the consumer in the specific case. The ECJ answered both questions in the negative and with somewhat generalised reasoning. Both decisions can be endorsed above all because both International Civil Procedural Law and the Conflicts of Laws realise consumer protection through abstract rules on the access to domestic courts or the applicable law, which means that, in principle, choosing the most favourable forum or legal result in each individual case is not a valid option.

C. Uhlmann: The contract to enter into a future contract in Private International Law and International Civil Litigation

In EXTÉRIA, the ECJ decided upon the question of whether a contract to enter into a future contract relating to the future conclusion of a franchise agreement, which provides for an obligation to pay a contractual penalty based on non-performance of that contract to enter into a future contract, is a service contract in accordance with Art. 7(1)(b) Brussels Ia-Regulation. The ECJ answered this question in the negative on the grounds that the contract to enter into a future contract does not stipulate the performance of any positive act or the payment of any remuneration; in the absence of any actual activity carried out by the co-contractor, the payment of the contractual penalty could also not be characterized as remuneration. Instead, international jurisdiction should be determined in accordance with Art. 7(1)(a) Brussels Ia-Regulation. The author criticizes that the ECJ characterizes the contract to enter into a future contract detached from the future contract and generally argues in favor of an ancillary characterization and a broad understanding of the provision of services for the purpose of Art. 7(1)(b) Brussels Ia-Regulation.

C. Rüsing: Transfer of jurisdiction under Article 15 Brussels IIbis Regulation and Articles 12, 13 Brussels IIter Regulation in cases of child abduction

According to Art. 15 Brussels IIbis Regulation, a court of a Member State may, under certain prerequisites, transfer its jurisdiction in custody proceedings to the court of another Member State. In TT ./. AK (C-87/22), the CJEU held that in cases of child abduction, a court with jurisdiction under Art. 10 Brussels IIbis Regulation may also transfer jurisdiction to a court of the state to which the child has been abducted. The article welcomes this, but highlights problems that both courts must take into account in doing so. It also discusses changes under the Brussels IIter Regulation now in force.

D. Looschelders: Time-preserving effect of a waiver of the succession before the courts of the heir’s habitual residence

Whether a waiver of the succession before a court at the habitual residence of the heir competent under Article 13 of the EU Succession Regulation has time-preserving effect, even if the declaration of the heir is not forwarded to the court responsible for settling the estate within the period stipulated by the law applicable to the succession, has been controversial to date. In the present decision, the ECJ has affirmed a deadline-preserving effect. The operative part and the grounds of the judgement suggest that the ECJ regards the question of before which court the waiver of the succession is to be declared as a matter of form. The prevailing opinion in Germany, on the other hand, still categorises this question as a matter of substantive law; the jurisdiction of the courts at the habitual residence of the heirs is therefore understood as a case of substitution ordered by law. Within the scope of application of Article 13 EU Succession Regulation the divergent characterisation has no practical significance. However, different results may arise if an heir according to the law of his habitual residence does not waive the succession before a court or if he declares the waiver of the succession before a court of a third country. In these cases, only Article 28 EU Succession Regulation is applicable, but not Article 13 EU Succession Regulation. As the ECJ has argued with the interaction between both provisions, a new referral to the ECJ may be necessary in this respect.

C. A. Kern/K. Bönold: Blocking effect of filing an insolvency petition with courts in Member States and third countries under the EU Insolvency Regulation and InsO

In its preliminary ruling of 24 March 2022 (Case C-723/20 – Galapagos BidCo. Sàrl ./. DE, Hauck Aufhäuser Fund Services SA, Prime Capital SA), the ECJ confirmed that the filing of an insolvency petition with a court of a Member State triggers a bar to the jurisdiction of courts of other Member States. Due to Brexit, the BGH, in its final decision of 8 December 2022 (IX ZB 72/19), had to apply German international insolvency law, which it interpreted differently from the EU Insolvency Regulation.

H.-P. Mansel: In memory of Erik Jayme

C. Kohler: Guidelines on the recognition of a foreign legal relationship in private international law – Conference of the European Group for Private International Law 2023, Milan, September 2023

by Achim Czubaiko, Research Fellow („Wissenschaftlicher Mitarbeiter“) and PhD Candidate, supported by the German Scholarship Foundation, Institute for German and International Civil Procedural Law, University of Bonn.

Union Jack and European Union flag 2012 © Dave Kellam (CC BY-SA 2.0 Deed)

Today marks a significant step towards the reconstruction of EU-UK Judicial Cooperation. As neither House of Parliament has raised an objection by 17 May 2024,[1] the way seems to be paved for the Government’s ambitious plans to have the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention[2] implemented and ratified by the end of June 2024.[3] For the first time since the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union (so-called Brexit) on 31 January 2020, a general multilateral instrument would thus once again be put in place to govern the mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters across the English Channel.

We wish to take this opportunity to look back on the eventful journey that the European Union and the United Kingdom have embarked on in judicial cooperation since Brexit (I.) as well as to venture a look ahead on what may be expected from the prospective collaboration within and perhaps even alongside the HCCH system (II.).

I. From Brexit to The Hague (2016-2024)

When the former Prime Minister and current Foreign Secretary David Cameron set the date for the EU referendum on 23 June 2016, this was widely regarded as just a political move to ensure support for the outcome of his renegotiations of the terms of continued membership in the European Union.[4] However, as the referendum results showed 51.9% of voters were actually in favour of leaving,[5] it became apparent that Downing Street had significantly underestimated the level of voter mobilisation achieved by the Vote Leave campaign. Through the effective adoption of their alluring “take back control” slogan, the Eurosceptics succeeded in framing European integration as undermining Britain’s sovereignty – criticising inter alia a purportedly dominant role of the Court of Justice (CJEU) – while simultaneously conveying a positive sentiment for the United Kingdom’s future as an autonomous country[6] – albeit on the basis of sometimes more than questionable arguments.[7]

http://www.voteleavetakecontrol.org/why_vote_leave.html

Whatever the economic or political advantages of such a repositioning might be (if any at all), it proved to be a severe setback in terms of judicial cooperation. Since most – if not all – of the important developments with respect to civil and commercial matters[8]in this area were achieved within the framework of EU Private International Law (PIL) (e.g. Brussels Ibis, Rome I-II etc.), hopes were high that some of these advantages would be preserved in the subsequent negotiations on the future relationship after Brexit.[9] A period of uncertainty in forum planning for cross-border transactions followed, as it required several rounds of negotiations between EU Chief Negotiator Michel Barnier and his changing UK counterparts (David Frost served for the final stage from 2019-2020) to discuss both the Withdrawal Agreement[10] as well as the consecutive Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA).[11] While the first extended the applicability of the relevant EU PIL Regulations for proceedings instituted, contracts concluded or events occurred during the transition period until 31 December 2020,[12] the latter contained from that point onwards effectively no provision for these matters, with the exception of the enforcement of intellectual property rights.[13] Thus, with regard to civil judicial cooperation, the process of leaving the EU led to – what is eloquently referred to elsewhere as – a “sectoral hard Brexit”.[14]

With no tailor-made agreement in place, the state of EU-UK judicial cooperation technically fell back to the level of 1973 before the UK’s accession to the European Communities. In fact, – in addition to the cases from the transition period – the choice of law rules of the Rome I and Rome II-Regulations previously incorporated into the domestic law, remained applicable as so-called retained EU law (REUL) due to their universal character (loi uniforme).[15] However, this approach was not appropriate for legal acts revolving around the principle of reciprocity, particularly in International Civil Procedure.[16] Hence, a legal stocktaking was required in order to assess how Brexit affected the status of those pre-existing multilateral conventions and bilateral agreements with EU Member States that had previously been superseded by EU law.

First, the UK Government has been exemplary in ensuring the “seamless continuity” of the HCCH 2005 Choice of Court Convention throughout the uncertainties of the whole withdrawal process, as evidenced by the UK’s declarations and Note Verbale to the depositary Kingdom of the Netherlands.[17] The same applies mutatis mutandis to the HCCH 1965 Service Convention, to which all EU Member States are parties, and the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention, which has only been ratified so far by 23 EU Member States. Second, some doubts arose regarding an ipso iure revival of the original Brussels Convention of 1968,[18] the international treaty concluded on the occasion of EU membership and later replaced by the Brussels I Regulation when the EU acquired the respective competence under the Treaty of Amsterdam.[19] Notwithstanding the interesting jurisprudential debate, these speculations were effectively put to a halt in legal practice by a clarifying letter of the UK Mission to the European Union.[20] Third, there are a number of bilateral agreements with EU Member States that could be reapplied, although these can hardly substitute for the Brussels regime, which covers most of the continental jurisdictions.[21] This is, for example, the position of the German government and courts regarding the German-British Convention of 1928.[22]

It is evident that this legal patchwork is not desirable for a major economy that wants to provide for legal certainty in cross-border trade, which is why the UK Government at an early stage sought to enter into a more specific framework with the European Union. First and foremost, the Johnson Ministry was dedicated to re-access the Lugano Convention[23] which extended the Brussels regime to certain Member States of the European Free Trade Association (EFTA)/European Economic Area (EEA) in its own right.[24] Given the strong resentments Brexiteers showed against the CJEU during their campaign this move is not without a certain irony, as its case law is also crucial to the uniform interpretation of the Lugano Convention.[25] Whereas Switzerland, Iceland and Norway gave their approval, the European Commission answered the UK’s application in the negative and referred to the HCCH Conventions as the “framework for cooperation with third countries”.[26] What some may view as a power play by EU bureaucrats could also fairly be described as a necessary rebalancing of trust and control due to the comparatively weaker economic and in particular judicial integration with the United Kingdom post-Brexit.[27] At the very least, the reference to the HCCH reflects the consistent European practice in other agreements with third countries.[28]

Be that as it may, if His Majesty’s Government implements its ratification plan as diligently as promised, the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention may well be the first new building block in the reconstruction what has been significantly shattered on both sides by the twists and turns of Brexit.

II. (Prospective) Terms of Judicial Cooperation

Even if the path of EU-UK Judicial Cooperation has eventually led to The Hague, there is still a considerable leeway in the implementation of international common rules.

Fortunately, the UK Government has already put forward a roadmap for the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention in its responses to the formal consultation carried out from 15 December 2022 to 9 February 2023[29] as well as the explanatory memorandum to the Draft Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments Regulations 2024.[30] Generally speaking, the UK Government wants to implement the HCCH Convention for all jurisdictions of the United Kingdom without raising any reservation limiting the scope of application. Being a devolved matter, this step requires the Central Government to obtain the approval of a Northern Ireland Department (Roinn i dTuaisceart Éireann) and the Scottish Ministers (Mhinistearan na h-Alba).[31] Furthermore, this approach also implies that there will be no comparable exclusion of insurance matters as under the HCCH 2005 Convention.[32] However, the Responses contemplated making use of the bilateralisation mechanism in relation to the Russian Federation upon its accession to the Convention.[33]

Technically, the Draft Statutory Instrument employs a registrations model that has already proven successful for most recognition and enforcement schemes applicable in the UK.[34] However, registration within one jurisdiction (e.g. England & Wales) will on this basis alone not allow for recognition and enforcement in another (e.g. Scotland, Northern Ireland), but is rather subject to re-examination by the competent court (e.g. Court of Session).[35] This already constitutes a significant difference compared to the system of automatic recognition under the Brussels regime. Moreover, the draft instrument properly circumvents the peculiar lack of an exemption from legalisation in the HCCH 2019 Convention by recognizing the seal of the court as sufficient authentication for the purposes of recognition and enforcement.[36] It remains to be seen if decisions of third states “domesticated” in the UK under the common law doctrine of obligation will be recognized as judgments within the European Union. If the CJEU extends the position taken in J. v. H Limited to the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention, the UK may become an even more attractive gateway to the EU Single Market than expected.[37] Either way, the case law of the CJEU will be mandatory for 26 Contracting States and thus once again play – albeit not binding – a dominant role in the application of the HCCH legal instrument.

As far as the other legal means of judicial cooperation are concerned, the House of Lords does not yet appear to have given up on accession to the Lugano Convention.[38] Nevertheless, it seems more promising to place one’s hopes on continued collaboration within the framework of the HCCH. This involves working towards the reconstruction of the remaining foundational elements previously present in EU-UK Judicial Cooperation by strengthening the HCCH Jurisdiction Project and further promoting the HCCH 1970 Evidence Convention in the EU.

III. Conclusion and Outlook

After all, the United Kingdom’s withdrawal from the European Union has dealt a serious blow to judicial cooperation across the English Channel. A look back at the history of Brexit and the subsequent negotiations has revealed that the separation process is associated with an enormous loss of trust. Neither could the parties agree on a specific set of rules under the TCA, nor was the European Union willing to welcome the United Kingdom back to the Lugano Convention.

Against this background, it is encouraging to see that both parties have finally agreed on the HCCH as a suitable and mutually acceptable forum to discuss the future direction of EU-UK Judicial Cooperation. If Brexit ultimately brought about a reinvigorated commitment of the United Kingdom to the HCCH Project, this might even serve as an inspiration for other States to further advance the Hague Conference’s ambitious goal of global judicial cooperation. Then the prophecies of the old songs would have turned out to be true, after a fashion. Thank goodness!

[1]    HL Int. Agreements Committee, 11^th Report of 8 May 2024 “Scrutiny of international agreements: 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” (HL Paper 113), para. 1. According to sec. 20 (1) (a) and (2) of the Constitutional Reform and Governance Act 2010 (c. 25) is a treaty not ratified unless a Minister of the Crown has laid a copy before parliament for a period of 21 sitting days.

[2]    Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in civil or commercial matters (HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention) of 2 July 2019, UNTS I-58036 and Tractatenblad 2024, 42 (Verdragsnr. 013672).

[3]    Civil Procedure Rule Committee, Minutes of 1 December 2023, para. 28

[4] See inter alia, Mason, “How did UK end up voting to leave the European Union?”, The Guardian of 24 June 2016; Boffey, “Cameron did not think EU referendum would happen, says Tusk”, The Guardian of 21 January 2019; Duff, “David Cameron’s EU reform claims: If not ‘ever closer union’, what?”, Blogpost of 26 January 2016 on Verfassungsblog | On Matters Constitutional; von Lucke, “Brexit oder: Die verzockte Demokratie”, Blätter 8/2016, 5 et seq.

[5] UK Electoral Commission, “23 June 2016 referendum on the UK’s membership of the European Union”, Report of September 2016, p 6.

[6] Compare Haughton, “Ruling Divisions: The Politics of Brexit”, Perspectives on Politics 19 (2021), 1258, 1260; Özlem Atikcan/Nadeau/Bélanger, “Framing Risky Choices: Brexit and the Dynamics of High-stakes Referendums”, p. 44.

[7] E.g. Rankin, “Is the leave campaign really telling six lies?”, The Guardian of 7 June 2016.

[8] This finding might look different for International Family Law, according to Beaumont, “Private International Law concerning Children in the UK after Brexit: Comparing Hague Treaty Law with EU Regulations”, Child & Fam. L. Q. 29 (2017), 213, 232: “In all these matters students, practitioners and judges will be grateful to have fewer operative legal regimes post-Brexit”.

[9] For example, on this blog Fitchen, “Brexit: No need to stop all the clocks”, Blogpost of 31 January 2020 or Lutzi, “Brexit: The Spectre of Reciprocity Evoked Before German Courts”, Blogpost of 13 December 2020.

[10] Agreement on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland from the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community (Withdrawal Agreement) of 24 January 2020, OJ EU CI 384/1.

[11] Trade and Cooperation Agreement between the European Union and the European Atomic Energy Community, of the one part, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, of the other part (TCA) of 30 December 2020, OJ EU L 149/10.

[12] Art. 126 of the Withdrawal Agreement.

[13] Compare Chapter 3: Art. 256-273 of the TCA.

[14] Bert, “Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters: Hard Brexit After All?”, Blogpost of 26 December 2020 on Dispute Re§olution Germany.

[15] Sec. 3 (1) European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018, Chapter 16/2018, sec. 10, 11 The Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019, SI 2019/834; For the current status of the Retained EU Law, see House of Commons Library “The end of REUL? – Progress in reforming retained EU law”, Research Briefing No.°09957 of 2 February 2024 (author: Leigh Gibson).

[16] Implicitly Dickinson, “Realignment of the Planets – Brexit and European Private International Law”, IPRax 2021, 213, 217 et seq.

[17] See Notes Verbales of the United Kingdom to the Kingdom of the Netherlands in its capacity as depositary of the HCCH 2005 Judments Convention from 28 December 2018 to 28 September 2020 in the Treaty Database.

[18] Convention on jurisdiction and the enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matter (Brussels Convention) of 27 September 1968, OJ EU L 229/31; See e.g. Rühl, “Judicial Cooperation in Civil and Commercial Matters after Brexit: Which Way Forward?”, ICLQ 67 (2018), 99, 104 et seq.

[19] Art. 73m of the Treaty of Amsterdam amending the Treaty on European Union, the Treaties establishing the European Communities and certain related acts of 2 October 1997, OJ EU C 340/1.

[20] UK Mission to the European Union, Letter to the Council of the European Union of 29 January 2021, NO 17/2021.

[21] See, for example, the Agreement on the continued Application and Amendment of the Convention between the Government of the United Kingdom and the Government of Norway providing for the Reciprocal Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters singed at London on 12 June 1961, SI 2020 No. 1338.

[22] Convention on the Facilitation of Legal Proceedings in Civil and Commercial Matters between His Majesty and the President of the German Reich of 20 March 1928; RGBl. 1928 II Nr. 47; for the position of the German Government, please refer to German Federal Government “Response to the parliamentary enquiry on judicial cooperation in civil matters with the United Kingdom post-Brexit”, BT-Drucks. 19/27550 of 12 March 2021, p. 3, for a recent decision of the German Judiciary, see Higher Regional Court of Cologne, Decision of 2 March 2023, I-18 U 188/21, paras. 60 et seq.

[23] Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Lugano Convention) of 30 October 2007, OJ EU L 339/3.

[24] With the notable exception of Liechtenstein.

[25] Art. 64 Lugano Convention as well as the Protocol concerning the interpretation by the Court of Justice of 3 June 1971, OJ EU L No°204/28.

[26] For the consent of the other Contracting State (except Denmark), see Swiss FDFA, “Communications by the depositary with respect to the application of accession by the United Kingdom”, Notification of 28 April 2021, 612-04-04-01 – LUG3/21; for the rejection of the EU Commission, Note Verbale to the Swiss Federal Council of 22 June 2021 and, “Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention”, COM(2021) 222 final of 4 May 2021, pp. 3 et seq. However, this decision was not without criticism, for example by the Chair-Rapporteur of the OHCHR Working Group on the issue of human rights and transnational corporations and other business enterprises in a letter to the EU Commission of 14 March 2024.

[27] For these arguments see EU Commission, “Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention”, COM(2021) 222 final of 4 May 2021, p. 3 and European Parliamentary Research Service (EPRS), “The United Kingdom’s possible re-joining of the 2007 Lugano Convention” Briefing PE 698.797 of November 2021 (author: Rafa? Ma?ko), pp. 3 et seq. For a theoretical foundation, see M. Weller, “ ‘Mutual Trust’: A Suitable Foundation for Private      International Law in Regional Integration Communities and Beyond”, RdC 423 (2022), 37, 295 et seq.

[28] See e.g. Art. 24 of the Association Agreement between the European Union and its Member States, of the one part, and Ukraine, of the other par, OJ EU No°L 161/3: “The Parties agree to facilitate further EU-Ukraine judicial cooperation in civil matters on the basis of the applicable multilateral legal instruments, especially the Conventions of the Hague Conference on Private International Law in the field of international Legal            Cooperation and Litigation as well as the Protection of Children”. Until recently, the regulation of judicial cooperation specifically in and for extra-EU trade relations appeared to be aout of sight, see M. Weller, “Judicial cooperation of the EU in civil matters in its relations to non-EU States – a blind spot?”, in Alan Uzelac/Rhemco van Rhee (eds.), Public and Private Justice (PPJ) 2017: The Transformation of Civil Justice, Intersentia 2018, pp. 63 et seq.

[29] UK Ministry of Justice, The Hague 2019 – Response to Consultation of 23 November 2023 (“Responses”).

[30] Draft Statutory Instruments 2024 No. XXX Private International Law: The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc.) Regulations 2024 (“Draft Guidelines”). The competence to make regulations in that respect is based on sec. 2 (1) of the Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (c. 24). According to sec. 2 (11) read in conjunction with sched. 6 paras. 4 (2) (a) and (d) draft regulations need to be laid before parliament for approval of each House by a resolution.

[31] Sec. 2 (12) Private International Law (Implementation of Agreements) Act 2020 (c. 24); see also Letter from the Scottish Minister for Victims and Community Safety of 19 March 202 regarding the “UK SI Notification – The Recognition and Enforcement of Judgments (2019 Hague Convention etc) Regulations 2024”.

[32] See Response, para. 51; a similar discussion took place regarding “mixed litigation issues”, where only certain elements are within the scope of the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention.

[33] Responses, para. 53.

[34] See inter alia the Administration of Justice Act 1920, Chapter 81/1920 (Regnal. 10 & 11 Geo 5) or the Foreign Judgments (Reciprocal Enforcement) Act 1933, Chapter 13/1933 (Regnal. 23 & 24 Geo 5.

[35] Sec. 15 Draft Guidelines and Draft Explanatory Memorandum, para. 5.5.5.

[36] Sec. 12 Draft Guidelines; Garcimartin/Saumier, HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention: Explanatory Report, para. 307.

[37] See CJEU, Judgment of 7 April 2022, J. v. H. Limited, C-568/20, para. 47. However, there is a certain chance that this case law will be corrected in the upcoming revision process of the Brussels Ibis-Regulation, see e.g. Hess/Althoff/Bens/Elsner/Järvekülg, “The Reform of the Brussels Ibis Regulation”, MPI Luxembourg Research Paper Series N.°2022 (6), proposal 15.

[38] HL Int. Agreements Committee, 11^th Report of 8 May 2024 “Scrutiny of international agreements: 2019 Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil or Commercial Matters” (HL Paper 113), para. 17: “Many stakeholders have called for the Government to continue its efforts to join the Lugano Convention in addition to ratifying Hague 2019. We agree that the Government should do so.”

This post was written by Begüm Kilimcio?lu (PhD researcher), Thalia Kruger (Professor) and Tine Van Hof (Guest professor and postdoctoral researcher), all of the University of Antwerp.

During the last plenary meeting of the current composition of the European Parliament (before the elections of June 2024), which took place from Monday 22 until Thursday 24 April, several proposals relevant to private international law were put to a vote (see the full agenda of votes and debates). All of the regulations discussed here still have to be formally approved by the Council of the European Union before they become binding law, in accordance with the ordinary legislative procedure.

It is interesting to note that, while many pieces of new legislation have a clear cross-border impact in civil matters, not all of them explicitly address private international law. While readers of this blog are probably used to the discrepancies this has led to in various fields of the law, it is still worth our consideration.

First, the European Parliament voted on and adopted the proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD) with 374 votes in favour, 235 against and 19 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). The text adopted is the result of fierce battles between the Commission, Parliament and the Council and also other stakeholders such as civil society, academics and practitioners. This necessitated compromise and resulted in a watered-down version of the Commission’s initial proposal of 23 February 2022 and does not go as far as envisaged in the European Parliament’s Resolution of 10 March 2021 (see also earlier blog pieces by Jan von Hein, Chris Tomale, Giesela Rühl, Eduardo Álvarez-Armas and Geert van Calster).

The Directive is one of the few instruments worldwide that put legally-binding obligations on multinational enterprises. It lays down obligations for companies regarding their adverse actual and potential human rights and environmental impacts, with respect to their own operation, the operations of their subsidiaries, and the operations carried out by their business partners in the chains of activities. The Directive further stipulates specific measures that companies have to take to prevent, mitigate or bring an end to their actual or potential adverse human rights impacts. Besides national supervisory authorities for the oversight of the implementation of the obligations, the Directive enacts civil liability for victims of corporate harm.

The adopted Directive is more or less silent on private international law. The closest it gets to addressing our field of the law is Article 29(7), placing the duty on Member States to ensure the mandatory nature of civil remedies:

Member States shall ensure that the provisions of national law transposing this Article are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to claims to that effect is not the national law of a Member State.

and Recital 90, which is more general:

In order to ensure that victims of human rights and environmental harm can bring an action for damages and claim compensation for damage caused when the company intentionally or negligently failed to comply with the due diligence obligations stemming from this Directive, this Directive should require Member States to ensure that the provisions of national law transposing the civil liability regime provided for in this Directive are of overriding mandatory application in cases where the law applicable to such claims is not the national law of a Member State, as could for instance be the case in accordance with international private law rules when the damage occurs in a third country. This means that the Member States should also ensure that the requirements in respect of which natural or legal persons can bring the claim, the statute of limitations and the disclosure of evidence are of overriding mandatory application. When transposing the civil liability regime provided for in this Directive and choosing the methods to achieve such results, Member States should also be able to take into account all related national rules to the extent they are necessary to ensure the protection of victims and crucial for safeguarding the Member States’ public interests, such as its political, social or economic organisation.

While the text contains references to numerous existing Regulations, Brussels I and Rome I are not among them; not even a precursory or confusing reference as in Recital 147 of the GDRP.

Second, the European Parliament voted on two other proposals that build on and implement the objectives of the European Green Deal and the EU Circular Economy Action Plan. The first is a proposal for a Regulation establishing a framework for setting eco-design requirements for sustainable products with 455 votes in favour, 99 against and 54 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). The Regulation aims to reduce the negative life cycle environmental impacts of products by improving the products’ durability, reusability, upgradability, reparability etc. It sets design requirements for products that will be placed on the market, and establishes a digital product certificate to inform consumers.

This Regulation does not contain a private-international-law type connecting factor for contracts or products. Neither does it expressly elevate its provisions to overriding rules of mandatory law (to at least give us some private international law clue). Its scope is determined by the EU’s internal market. All products that enter the European market have to be in conformity with the requirements of both regulations, also those that are produced in third countries and subsequently imported on the European market (Art. 3(1)). “Products that enter the market” is the connecting factor, or the basis for applying the Regulation as overriding mandatory law. The Regulation is silent on products that exit the market. Hopefully the result will not be that products that were still in the production cycle at the time of entry into force will simply be exported out of the EU.

The third adopted proposal is the Regulation on packaging and packaging waste with 476 votes in favour, 129 against and 24 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). This Regulation aims to reduce the amount of packaging placed on the Union market, ensuring the environmental sustainability of the packaging that is placed on the market, preventing the generation of packaging waste, and the collection and treatment of packaging waste that has been generated. To reach these aims, the regulation’s key measures include phasing out certain single-use plastics by 2030, minimizing so called “forever chemicals” chemicals in food packaging, promoting reuse and refill options, and implementing separate collection and recycling systems for beverage containers by 2029.

Like the Eco-design Regulation, no word on Private International Law, no references. The Regulation refers to packaging “placed on the market” in various provisions (most notably Art. 4(1)) and recitals (e.g. Recitals 10 and 14).

Lastly, the European Parliament approved the proposal for a regulation on prohibiting products made with forced labour on the Union market with an overwhelming majority of 555 votes in favour, 6 against and 45 abstentions (see also the European Parliament’s Press Release). The purpose of this Regulation is to improve the functioning of the internal market while also contributing to the fight against forced labour (including forced child labour). Economic operators are to eliminate forced labour from their operations through the pre-existing due diligence obligations under Union law. It introduces responsible authorities and a database of forced labour risk areas or products.

Just as is the case for the other Regulations, this Regulation does not contain references to private international law instruments, and no explicit reference to instruments in this field, even though the implementation of the Regulation requires vigilance throughout the value chain. It would be correct to assume that this provides overriding mandatory law, as the ban on forced labour is generally accepted to be jus cogens even though the extent of this ban is contentious (see Franklin).

Other proposals that are more clearly in the domain of private international law have not (yet?) reached the finish line. First, in the procedure on the dual proposals in the field of the protection of adults of 31 May 2023, the European Parliament could either adopt them or introduce amendments at first reading. However, these proposals have not reached the plenary level before the end of term and it will thus be for the Conference of Presidents to decide at the beginning of the new parliamentary term whether the consideration of this ‘unfinished business’ can be resumed or continued (Art. 240 Rules of Procedure of the European Parliament).

In the second file, the proposal for a Regulation in matters of parenthood and on the creation of a European Certificate of Parenthood of 7 December 2022 the European Parliament was already consulted and submitted its opinion in a Resolution of 14 December 2023. It is now up to the Council of the European Union to decide unanimously (according to the procedure in Art. 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union). It can either adopt the amended proposal or amend the proposal once again. In the latter case the Council has to notify or consult (in case of substantial amendments) the European Parliament again.