The fourth issue of French Journal du droit international (Clunet) for 2012 was just released. It contains two articles addressing issues of private international law and several casenotes. A full table of content is accessible here.

In the first article, Walid Ben Hamida, who lectures at Evry University, discusses the application of the UNIDROIT Principles in arbitration proceedings involving states or international organizations (Les principes d’UNIDROIT et l’arbitrage transnational : L’expansion des principes d’UNIDROIT aux arbitrages opposant des États ou des organisations internationales à des personnes privées).

Originally destined to international commercial contracts, UNIDROIT principles are now experiencing a remarkable growth in transnational relationships. Due to their neutrality, universality and quality, they have been well received by the arbitrators and the parties in many arbitrations opposing private parties to States or international organizations. In this article, the author makes an inventory of the references to UNIDROIT principles in transnational arbitral jurisprudence and analyzes the reasons of their application. He analyses both traditional transnational arbitration based on classical arbitration clauses and unilateral transnational arbitration resulting from the acceptance by the private party of an offer of arbitration expressed by a State or by an international organization.

In the second article, Olivier Dubos, who is a professor of public law at the University of Bordeaux, explores the issues raised by the different interpretations of Article 33 of the Montreal Convention adopted by French and American courts (Juridictions américaines et juridictions françaises face à l’article 33 de la Convention de Montréal : un dialogue de sourds ?).

Article 33 of the Montréal Convention « for the Unification of certain rules for International Carriage by air », gives the victims of an air transport accident an « option » to bring their action for damages before different fora that the aforementioned article designates. The French Supreme Court (Cour de cassation) recently considered that this freedom of option took on an imperative character and accordingly considers that the French jurisdictions are not available if the plaintiff first chose a jurisdiction of another State (the USA in the latter case). On the other hand, for some American jurisdictions, article 33 can be combined with the theory of « ‘forum non conveniens » which allows them to refuse to adjudicate a claim grounded on the Montreal convention. However, such an interpretation of article 33 does not win unanimous support amongst American judges. The victims who, in accordance with article 33, have chosen to take their case before the American jurisdiction could find themselves in a deadlock…

I am grateful to Dr. Dafina Sarbinova, an advocate to the Sofia Bar, for this report.

In a judgment of of 2 September 2011 (Judgment No. 71 in commercial case No. 1193/2010 ), the highest Bulgarian court – the Bulgarian Supreme Court of Cassation, Commercial Chamber – struck down a one way arbitration/choice of court clause in a loan agreement (only in favour of the lender) as void. The Bulgarian court’s arguments to hold that are very similar to those of the French Supreme Court published last month, i.e. it was held that such clauses may be interpreted as purporting to establish by way of contractual arrangements a “potestative right” (that is, a right whereby a person may unilaterally affect the legal rights of another person/counterparty) which is not permitted under Bulgarian law, because such rights may only be established by an act of parliament in Bulgaria.

The facts may briefly be summarized as follows. A loan agreement was concluded between individuals (natural persons) in an entirely domestic situation. An arbitration clause in that agreement provided that all disputes that might arise had to be resolved by the parties amicably and if they failed to do so, the lender might initiate proceedings against the borrowers before the Court of Arbitration at the Bulgarian Chamber of Commerce and Industry (BCCI) or any other arbitration institution, or before the Regional Court of Sofia. A dispute arose and the lender brought an action before the Court of Arbitration at BCCI, which in turn, found that it was competent to hear the dispute and ruled that the borrowers under the agreement were jointly liable to pay a principal amount as well as the applicable interest rate. The borrowers initiated proceedings to set aside the arbitration award before the Supreme Court of Cassation claiming that the Court of Arbitration at BCCI lacked jurisdiction. They argued that the arbitration clause was against the good morals (a contract contra bonos mores) and thus illegal. Furthermore, the borrowers asserted that the arbitration clause breached the principle of parties’ equality in the process (which is a general principle under the Bulgarian civil procedural law).

According to the Supreme Court of Cassation the right of the lender in that case to choose at its own discretion the dispute solving body before which to exercise its public right to bring a claim falls within the category of “potestative” rights. The essential characteristic of a “potestative” right is the entitlement of one person (or a group of persons) to affect unilaterally the legal position of another person (or a group of persons), where the latter are obliged to bear with the consequences. Due to the intensity and potentially detrimental effects of “potestative” rights on third parties, they exist only by virtue of law and are not subject to contractual arrangements. On the basis of these arguments, the court concluded that a clause which in violation of law entitled one of the parties to unilaterally decide which dispute resolution body (an arbitration institution or a court) has a jurisdiction to resolve a particular dispute, is void pursuant to art.26, par.1 of the Bulgarian Contracts and Obligations Act. According to this provision, all contracts that violating or evading the law, as well as all contracts in breach of good morals, are void.

The arbitration/choice of court clause in that case was incorporated in a contract without an international element. However, the general character of the court’s arguments makes them equally applicable to agreements with an international element (if Bulgarian law applies towards the arbitration clause or even if a foreign law applies towards the arbitration clause).

The judgment of the Bulgarian court discussed here, may be open to criticism. Furthermore that judgment, as well as other judgments of the highest Bulgarian courts, does not have the power of a precedent binding all other courts to decide subsequent cases in the same manner. Nevertheless, the tendency of sticking down arbitration clauses with such reasoning (bearing in mind the similar French case) is a concerning one.

On November 2-3, 2012, the Private International Law Interest Group of the American Society of International Law (ASIL) is hosting its conference at Duke Law School, together with the Center for International and Comparative Law, and the Duke Journal of Comparative and International Law.

WHAT IS PRIVATE INTERNATIONAL LAW?

FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 2, 2012

1:15 Welcome / Introduction: Ralf Michaels

1:30 Panel 1: Philosophical Foundations of Private International Law
– John Linarelli, Theories of Justice and Private International Law
– Sagi Peari, The Choice-Based Perspective of Choice-of-Law
– Robert S. Wai, Already Transnational Private Law
Chair and Commentator: Trey Childress

3:45 Panel 2: The Goals of Private International Law
– Louise Ellen Teitz, The Future of the Hague Conference
– Alex Mills, The Identities of Private International Law – Lessons from the US and EU Revolutions
– Stéphanie Francq, Hierarchy of Norms—the Missing Tool of Private International Law?
Chair and Commentator: Chris Whytock

SATURDAY, NOVEMBER 3, 2012

9:00 Panel 3: Constitutional and Democratic Aspects of Private International Law
– Jacco Bomhoff, The Constitution of the Conflict of Laws
– Charles T. Kotuby, General Principles and International Due Process as Sources of Private International Law
– Mark Fathi Massoud, Private International Law in Authoritarian Regimes: International Arbitration and the Outsourcing of the Rule of Law
– Annelise Riles, After New Governance: International Financial Governance and the Surprising Attraction of a Conflict of Laws Approach
Chair and Commentator: Julie Maupin

11:15 Panel 4: Private International Law and Legal Pluralism
– Cristián Gimenez Corte, Pushing the Limits: The Function of Private International Law in the Era of Globalization and the Need to Review its Theoretical Foundations
– Yao-Ming Hsu, Pluralistic Justice and Private International Law
– Dwight Newman, Global Legal Pluralism, Collective Rights, and Private International Law
Chair and Commentator: Ralf Michaels

1:00 Lunch: 3rd floor Mezzanine
ASIL prize presentation

2:00 Wrap-up panel
All participants

Pluralismo y multiculturalidad: Tribunal arbitral musulmán y consejos islámicos (Sharia courts) en el Reino Unido is the title of the last paper by professor V. Camarero Suárez and professor F. Zamora Cabot, both from the University of Castellón. The paper, written in Spanish, has been published in the Anuario de Derecho Eclesiástico del Estado, 2012; professor Zamora will kindly send a pdf copy to those interested (just send him an email to this address: zamora@dpr.uji.es)

Here is the abstract:

  This study explores the interface between legal pluralism and multiculturality, taking as reference  british muslim minority nomoi groups and the alternative means of solution of controversies embodied in the Sharia Councils  and the Muslim Arbitral Tribunal (MAT). However, before dealing with this matter in the United Kingdom, our study makes insights from a comparative point of view both in Canada and the United States, where, in spite of no minor similitudes, the status of the aforesaid means of alternative solution of controversies is, at present time, far more different, given a deeper degree of religious pluralism and more reliance in arbitration at large in the United States. These two factors, and the widely known pragmatism and tolerance of the United Kingdom result, although there have been rounds of controversy about it, in the acceptance in that Country of the workings of the Sharia Councils and the MAT, in the twilight of British law- in the first case- or taken under the rule of that law, covered by the Arbitration Act of 1996, in the case of the MAT. Conceived on these terms, we agree on the acceptation of these types of controversies’s solutions – specially in case of the MAT- that we think are in full accordance with the modern State’s duty to preserve  minorities’ rights and freedom of religion and beliefs as examples of a genuine commitment towards the fulfillment of Human Rights.

Private International Law

Inaugural Lecture

29 July
Transnational Commercial Law and Conflict of Laws: Institutional Co-operation and Substantive Complementarity
Herbert KRONKE, Professor at Heidelberg University

General Course

5-16 August
Le rôle du politique en droit international privé
Patrick KINSCH, Lawyer, Visiting Professor at the University of Luxemburg

Special Courses

29 July-2 August
Conflict among Enforcement Regimes in International Economic Law
Hannah BUXBAUM, John E. Schiller Chair in Legal Ethics, Indiana University

Efficiency in Private International Law
Toshiyuki KONO, Professor at Kyushu University

Le statut juridique des standards publics et privés dans les relations économiques internationales
Jan WOUTERS, Professor at the University of Leuven

5-9 August
“Trusts” in Private International Law
David John HAYTON, Judge at the Caribbean Court of Justice

Les méthodes du droit international privé à l’épreuve du droit du travail
Étienne PATAUT, Professor at Sorbonne Law School, Paris I University

12-16 August
International Commercial Arbitration, a Comparative Approach with Special Focus on Russia
Alexey KOSTIN, Head of the Private International Law Department, Moscow State Institute of International Relations

Protection internationale des droits de l’homme et activités des sociétés transnationales
Fabrizio MARRELLA, Professor at the University of Venice

More information is available here.

A Liber Amicorum was published earlier this year to celebrate the 65th birthday of Athanassios Kaissis, who is a professor at the Law Faculty of Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

It includes the following contributions.

Konsolidierung des Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrechts
Jens Adolphsen

Das Anti-Counter-Feiting Trade Agreement vom 3.12.2010 – Zivilrechtliche Maßnahmen und deren Durchsetzung
Hans-Jürgen Ahrens

Unvereinbare Entscheidungen, drohende Rechtsverwirrung und Zweifel an der Kernpunkttheorie – Webfehler im Kommissionsvorschlag für eine Neufassung der Brüssel I-VO?
Christoph Althammer

Der österreichische Zivilprozess – bemerkenswerte Schwerpunkte der Reformen im neuen Jahrtausend
Oskar J. Ballon

Gibt es ein europäisches Rechtsschutzbedürfnis?
David-Christoph Bittmann

Der amicus curiae und die alten Formen der Beteiligung Dritter am Rechtsstreit. Neue Tendenzen nach brasilianischem Recht
Antonio Cabral

Die tödliche Verletzung im Deliktsrecht
Michael Coester

Der Erfüllungsort im internationalen Zivilprozessrecht
Dagmar Coester-Waltjen

Das neue schweizerische Arrestrecht – ausgewählte Probleme
Tanja Domej

Die Europäisierung des internationalen Zuständigkeitsrechts in Gütersachen
Anatol Dutta / Frauke Wedemann

Der Anspruch auf Rückforderung unbegründeter Zahlungen bei der Bankgarantie auf erstes Anfordern
Dietmar Ehrlich

Ausgewählte praxisrelevante Fragen in deutsch-algerischen Erbrechtsfällen
Omaia Elwan

Internationale Notzuständigkeit im polnischen Internationalen und Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht
Tadeusz Ereci?ski / Karol Weitz

Bruchstellen des internationalen Haftungsrechts in Europa bei vertragsnahen Pflichtverletzungen
Hilmar Fenge

Zum Begriff des gewöhnlichen Arbeitsortes i.S.d. Art. 19 Abs. 2 lit. a EuGVVO insb. bei der Verrichtung der arbeitsvertraglichen Tätigkeit an Bord eines Schiffes
Thomas Garber

Zur geplanten Reform des Gerichtsvollzieherwesens in Deutschland
Hans Friedhelm Gaul

Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung und Pflichtverletzung
Martin Gebauer

Europaweite Beachtlichkeit ausländischer Urteile zur internationalen Unzuständigkeit?
Reinhold Geimer

Der Streitgegenstand – eine Einheit in Vielfalt
Peter Gottwald

Vertraulichkeit im Zusammenhang mit Schiedsverfahren
Ulrich Haas

Juristisches Strukturdenken bei Goethe
Fritjof Haft

The notarial order for payment procedure as a Hungarian peculiarity
Viktória Harsági

Grundlagen der internationalen Notzuständigkeit im Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht
Wolfgang Hau

Reviewing Foreign Judgments in American Practice – Conclusiveness, Public Policy, and Révision au fond –
Peter Hay

Materieller Anspruch und Rechtshängigkeitssperre nach Art. 27 EuGVVO
Bettina Heiderhoff

Der Vorschlag der EU-Kommission zur vorläufigen Kontenpfändung – ein weiterer Integrationsschritt im Europäischen Zivilverfahrensrecht
Burkhard Hess

Koordinierung europäischer Zivilprozessrechtsinstrumente
Stefan Huber

Beschaffenheitsvereinbarung und Haftungsausschluss beim Kunstkauf – unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Falschlieferung
Erik Jayme

Der Gerichtsstand des Erfüllungsortes nach der Brüssel I-Verordnung im Licht der neueren EuGH-Rechtsprechung
Abbo Junker

Wer bestimmt das Honorar des Schiedsrichters?
Franz Kellerhals / Stefanie Pfisterer

Ungarn innerhalb des Tors des Lugano-Übereinkommens
Miklós Kengyel

“Cherry Picking” and Good Faith in German Arbitration Law: Two Recent Decisions on the Most-Favoured Treatment Clause (Article VII Para 1 NYC))
Peter Kindler

L’Arbitrage des Différends Relatifs aux Investissements en Afrique Francophone au Sud du Sahara: L’OHADA et le CIRDI
Rolf Knieper

Prozesskostenhilfe im internationalen Zivilverfahrensrecht – Grundlagen und aktuelle Probleme
Oliver L. Knöfel

Even if you steal it, it would be admissible – Rechtswidrig erlangte Beweismittel im Zivilprozess
Georg E. Kodek

Acceptable Transnational Anti-suit Injunctions
Herbert Kronke

Die Einrede vorprozessualer Verjährung als erledigendes Ereignis
Walter F. Lindacher

Das deutsche Bankgeheimnis im Steuerverfahren – Schutz der Bürger oder nur noch „Feigenblatt“? –
Karl-Georg Loritz

A patent court for Europe – status and prospects
Raimund Lutz & Stefan Luginbuehl

Kunstrecht als Disziplin – Stand, Inhalte, Methoden, Entwicklungen –
Peter M. Lynen

Zur Regelung von Sprachfragen im europäischen Internationalen Zivilverfahrensrecht
Peter Mankowski

Partei- und Anspruchsidentität im Sinne des Art. 27 Abs. 1 EuGVVO bei Mehrparteienprozessen: Ein Beitrag zur Konkretisierung des europäischen Streitgegenstandsbegriffs und der Kernbereichslehre
Heinz-Peter Mansel und Carl Friedrich Nordmeier

Schweizer Mahntitel und deren Behandlung unter dem revidierten LuganoÜbereinkommen und der EuGVVO
Alexander R. Markus

Priorität versus Flexibilität? Zur Weiterentwicklung der Verfahrenskoordination im Rahmen der EuGVO-Reform
Mary-Rose McGuire

Einstweiliger Rechtsschutz für Geldforderungen nach neuem schweizerischen Recht im Vergleich zum griechischen Recht
Isaak Meier und Sotirios Kotronis

Zulässigkeit einer Vereinbarung des Wiederverkaufs von Aktien zu einem Festpreis, um den Kreis der Aktionäre mit geringen Kosten zu beschränken?
Isamu Mori

Schiedsverfahren im Dreiländereck – Deutschland, Schweiz, Österreich –
Joachim Münch

Schiedsrichterbefangenheit und anwaltliche Versicherungsmandate
Thomas Pfeiffer

Bemerkungen zur Zusammenarbeit zwischen EuGH und Gerichten der EU-Staaten zum IPR, insbesondere in der Rechtssache C-29 / 10 Koelzsch gegen Luxemburg
Jörg Pirrung

Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung ohne Stammkapital und Einzelkaufmann mit (betrieblichem) Sondervermögen
Giuseppe B. Portale

Die Rolle des Anwalts bei der Rechtsfortbildung
Hanns Prütting

Zur Rechtsnatur der Anfechtung von Schiedssprüchen
Walter H. Rechberger

Schadenshaftung und erforderliche Vertragsanknüpfung bei Art. 15 EuGVO (LugÜ)
Herbert Roth

The Laws Applicable to the Arbitration Agreement
Helmut Rüßmann and Kinga Timár

Die prozessuale Behandlung von Honoraransprüchen freiberuflich Tätiger – Berechnung nach Arbeitszeit und dargestellt am Beispiel der Anwaltshonorierung
Peter F. Schlosser

Billigkeitsentscheidungen im internationalen Schiedsrecht auf der Grundlage von § 1051 Abs. 3 ZPO
Götz Schulze

Die Besetzung eines internationalen Schiedsgerichts und das anwendbare Recht
Rolf A. Schütze

Wann kommt in Ehesachen die EuEheKindVO, wann autonomes Recht zur Anwendung?
Daphne-Ariane Simotta

Der Beweiswert rechtgeschäftlicher Urkunden im Kollisionsrecht
Ulrich Spellenberg

Überlegungen zur Dogmatik des schiedsgerichtlichen Vergleichs und des Schiedsspruchs mit vereinbartem Wortlaut
Frank Spohnheimer

Kollektiver Rechtsschutz und Revision der Brüssel I-Verordnung
Astrid Stadler

Der Vertriebsort als Deliktsgerichtsstand für internationale Produkthaftungsklagen
Ben Steinbrück

Jurisdiction for Avoidance Claims of Insolvent Investment Undertakings – Procedural Aspects of the Phoenix Saga –
Michael Stürner

Mündlichkeit und Schriftlichkeit im europäischen Zivilprozess
Rolf Stürner

Das Europäische Mahnverfahren und dessen Umsetzung in den Niederlanden
Bartosz Sujecki

Die Bekämpfung der Torpedoklagen durch einen europäischen Rechtskrafteinwand
Miguel Teixeira de Sousa

Internationale Schiedsverfahren zwischen Effizienzanforderungen und zunehmender Komplexität
Roderich C. Thümmel

Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzungen im Internet Internationale Zuständigkeit am „Ort der Interessenkollision“?
Matthias Weller

Umsetzung der Zahlungsdienst-Richtlinie Nachteilige Auswirkungen für den Verbraucher
Friedrich Graf von Westphalen

Internationale Zuständigkeit und Anerkennung ausländischer Entscheidungen im chinesischen Insolvenzrecht
Mei Wu

More details can be found here.

Jan Kleinheisterkamp, Senior Lecturer in Law at the London School of Economics, has written an arcticle dealing with the much commented “Dallah v. Pakistan” case. The article has been published in The Modern Law Review 75 (2012), pp. 639-654. The abstract reads as follows:

This note analyses the reasoning of the English and French courts in Dallah Real Estate and Tourism Holding Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs, Government of Pakistan, in which an arbitral tribunal had accepted jurisdiction over the Government of Pakistan on the basis of an arbitration agreement concluded by a trust that was created, controlled, and then extinguished by the Government. It highlights the English courts’ clarifications on the degree to which arbitral awards should benefit from the presumption of validity at the stage of enforcement and discusses how the cultural background of the English and French judges – and of the arbitrators – drove them to come to contradictory results. Moreover, it argues that both judges and arbitrators, owing to the way the parties framed their arguments, probably missed the proper solution of the case.

 I’ve read this morning the post I reproduce below. I was wondering, do Finnish practitioners agree with the last comment?

Background

A Chinese construction company and a Finnish governmental entity were involved in arbitral proceedings in China. The proceedings were held under the applicable CIETAC rules in the Chinese language and the case was tried in accordance with the material laws of China as set forth in the contract between the parties. The award was rendered in December 2010 in favour of the Chinese company. However, the Finnish party refused to adhere to the award and the Chinese company was forced to commence a recognition and enforcement process in Finland. The Chinese company filed its application for recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in October 2011 with the competent Finnish court. The Finnish party disputed the application and demanded its dismissal.

Helsinki District Court rendered a decision concerning the recognition and enforcement of the arbitral award in June 2012. The arbitral award was ordered to be recognised and enforced in Finland as requested by the Chinese company. As a result, the Finnish party was also found liable to compensate the Chinese company for all of its legal costs accrued in the Finnish recognition process.

The Finnish law concerning recognition and enforcement of arbitral awards is based on the New York Convention of 1958. Article V(2)(b) of the Convention concerning public policy as a ground for refusal of recognition has been implemented with only minor amendments in the Finnish Arbitration Act. Other impediments for recognition listed in the Convention are also adopted in the Finnish Act with only some slight differences. Therefore, international case law can be used as guidance in Finland and any Finnish cases can be exploited internationally.

Grounds for Objecting the Recognition and Enforcement

In the proceedings, the Finnish party pleaded that the arbitral tribunal was partial and neglected the Finnish entity’s procedural rights. The Finnish party claimed that the arbitrators had unfairly advised the Chinese company during the proceedings and that the Finnish party’s right and chance to present both oral and written evidence were, in certain respect, completely ignored. Furthermore, it was claimed that the award was based on wrong application of the Chinese law, both in material and procedural respect.

Accordingly, the Finnish party claimed that its right to due process was violated and therefore the arbitral award, was against the Finnish ordre public.
The Finnish party demanded an oral hearing at the Finnish court in order to prove its claims and appointed several witnesses to witness about the arbitral proceedings.

The Court Decision

The District Court of Helsinki dismissed the Finnish party’s request for an oral hearing and rendered its decision in written proceedings. The court reasoned that the award rendered by the arbitral tribunal was final and it would be inappropriate as well as against the Finnish Arbitration Act, CIETAC rules and the Convention of New York to organise an oral hearing. The court reasoned that an oral hearing would mean that the case would be retried in practice although there already was a final decision.

The court also reasoned that Article 8 of CIETAC rules (2005) requires a party to submit its objection promptly when it holds that the CIETAC rules have not been complied with or the party shall be deemed to have waived its right to object. As the Finnish party had not submitted any objections during the arbitral proceedings, the court reasoned that it had waived its right to do so later. The court also stated that an arbitral award can be deemed invalid only extraordinarily.

After rejecting the Finnish party’s request for an oral hearing, the court briefly ruled that no grounds had been presented not to recognise and enforce the arbitral award in Finland. Therefore the court decided to accept the Chinese company’s application and ordered the arbitral award to be recognised and enforced in Finland.

In conclusion, the recognition process of arbitral awards in Finland is very summary and despite a party’s request, the courts are reluctant to organise any oral hearings. As a result, challenging an arbitral award in Finland is at least for the moment quite difficult.

Recently, the September/October issue of the German law journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was published.

• Urs Peter Gruber: “Scheidung auf Europäisch – die Rom III-Verordnung” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Regulation (EU) No. 1259/2010 („Rome III“) contains uniform conflict-of-laws rules on divorce and legal separation. Compared with the previous conflict-of-laws rules of the Member States, it brings about fundamental changes. Primarily, in contrast to the majority of the pre-existing national laws, it favours party autonomy. Only absent a valid agreement on the applicable law, divorce or legal separation are governed by the law of the state where the spouses have their common habitual residence or – under certain circumstances – were last habitually resident. The common nationality of the spouses and the lex fori are only subsidiary connecting factors.

The Regulation also touches some politically intricate subjects. First of all, the Regulation is also applicable to same-sex marriages; however, pursuant to a compromise reached in article 13, those Member States which do not accept same-sex marriages are not obliged to pronounce the divorce of such a marriage. Art. 10 which deals with gender discrimination might lead to a rigid exclusion of Islamic laws.

•  Christopher Wilhelm: “Die Anknüpfung von Treuhandverträgen im Internationalen Privatrecht unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Rom I-VO” – the English abstract reads as follows:

Having contractual as well as property rights elements, and because of the great variety of its possible fields of application, the German Treuhand does not only pose problems in German substantive law, but also in private international law. The present article shows how to find the law applicable to the contractual fiduciary relationship according to the Rome I Regulation. It points out and answers certain questions arising from the material scope of the regulation, and discusses the possibility and the advantages of choice of law. The main focus is on the law applicable in the absence of choice by the parties, Article 4 Rome I, and the specific problems occurring. The article closes by summing up the key aspects and a comment of the author.

•  Matthias Lehmann: “Vorschlag für eine Reform der Rom II-Verordnung im Bereich der Finanzmarktdelikte” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 On today’s interconnected financial markets, illegal behaviour – such as false or misleading information in prospectuses, violation of disclosure and shareholder transparency rules, ill-founded credit rating, merger offers not complying with legal requirements, insider trading or market manipulation – often has repercussions in different countries. This raises the question of the law that applies to the civil liability of the tortfeasor. In the European Union, the answer has to be found in the Rome II Regulation, which provides a comprehensive set of conflict rules for non-contractual obligations. However, the regulation does not contain any specific provision on financial torts. Its general rule, Article 4 (1), points to the law of the state in which the damage occured, i.e. either the state of the investors’ home or that of their bank accounts. When looking from the perspective of the tortfeasor – typically an issuer or an intermediary – this has the effect that a multitude of different laws governs, which moreover cannot be predicted in advance. In order to remedy this situation, the German Council for Private International Law, a body established by the German Ministry of Justice, suggests amending the Rome II Regulation. The proposal, an English version of which is annexed to this article, provides for new, specific connecting factors, an escape and a fallback clause, as well as special rules regarding collective redress, bilateral relationships and party autonomy.

• Martin Illmer: “Anti-suit injunctions and non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 Due to uncertainty about the interpretation and scope of two earlier, potentially conflicting Court of Appeal decisions concerning anti-suit injunctions enforcing non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements, the state of the law was unclear. Setting aside an anti-suit injunction granted by the High Court at first instance, the Court of Appeal made a fresh start. It distinguished the earlier case law on the matter and laid down general guidelines for the grant of anti-suit injunctions enforcing non-exclusive jurisdiction agreements. The decision itself as well as the accompanying plea on behalf of textbook writers deserve full support.

•  David-Christoph Bittmann: “Das Gemeinschaftsgeschmacksmuster im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 The following article deals with a decision rendered by the Oberlandesgericht Munich. Subject of this decision is an application for declaration of enforceability of an injunctive relief from the Tribunal de Grande Instance of Paris. With this injunctive relief the French court prohibited further infringements of a community design committed by a French and a Belgium enterprise, which are part of one concern. The applicant was in fear of further infringements of the community design through this concern in Germany so it applied for the declaration of enforceability of the French injunctive relief at the Landgericht Munich I. The German court however declined the application on the grounds that it has no jurisdiction as far as the Belgium enterprise is concerned; furthermore an injunctive relief was not a decision that could be subject of a declaration of enforceability. The Oberlandesgericht changed the decision and released the declaration of enforceability. The following article takes a closer look to the reasoning of the senate that had to deal with questions of international jurisdiction, of remedies in cases of protection of industrial property and of the enforcement of foreign judgements according to the Regulation Brussels I.

•  Stefan Reinhart: “Die Durchsetzung im Inland belegener Absonderungsrechte bei ausländischen Insolvenzverfahren oder Qualifikation, Vorfrage und Substitution im internationalen Insolvenzrecht” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 In a recent case the German Federal Court had to decide on cross-border insolvency issues that – at first hand – looked straight forward, which, however, are much more complicated at a second look. A secured creditor applied for enforcement measures in real property situated in Germany against a debtor who had been declared bankrupt in England. The Federal Court held that the application had to be dismissed since on the basis of German enforcement law the enforceable title had not been reindorsed and readressed against the English trustee and had not been served upon the trustee prior to initiating execution proceedings.

Unfortunately, the Federal Court entirely missed to clarify why such rules of German enforcement law would govern the effect of the commencement of an insolvency proceeding abroad. Had the German court adressed the issue, it would have become evident that such issue is explicitly addressed by Art. 4 sub. 2 lit. f of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) which, however, declares the lex fori concursus applicable. On the other hand, the situation is comparable to the conflict rule in Art. 15 EIR which refers to the lex fori of the trial pending. The issue can only be solved by a new construction of the meaning of those two provisions. The author argues that the German legal requirement to transcribe the title and to serve the title on the foreign trustee does not fall under the scope of Art. 4 EIR, but concedes that such solution requires a new approach regarding the relation of Art. 15 and 4 EIR.

•  Roland Abele: “Ausländisches Arbeitsvertragsstatut und Wartezeit nach § 1 Abs. 1 KSchG” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 A recent judgment by the German Federal Labour Court (“BAG”) may be relevant to foreign employers who, after having contracted employees under home law, transfer them to Germany where they continue to perform services for their employer. In the case, heard by the BAG, the plaintiff, a Latvian citizen, who had an employment contract with a Latvian bank under Latvian law, moved to Germany to become director of one of the bank’s subsidiaries located in Germany. Shortly afterwards, there was a change in the contract, this time under German law. Finally, the plaintiff was dismissed and he sued for unfair dismissal in Germany. The German statute granting protection against unfair dismissal (“KSchG”) provides for a probationary period of six months (“Wartezeit”, § 1 para. 1 KSchG). At the time the plaintiff was dismissed, he had not yet served six months under his (altered) contract as per German law. Nonetheless, the BAG sustained the suit, holding that the probationary period could be completed by two consecutive contracts with the same employer. The court also recognized that it is legally irrelevant if parts of the probationary period have been completed under foreign law, provided that German law was applicable to the contract at the time when the employee received notice.

•  Dominique Jakob/Matthias Uhl: “Die liechtensteinische Familienstiftung im Blick ausländischer Rechtsprechung” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 Several problems concerning Liechtenstein Foundations were repeatedly subject to judgments of Higher Regional Courts in Germany. These judgments were criticised in literature. Meanwhile also the Supreme Court of Austria (OGH) had to deal with a problem located at the crossroads of the principle of separation in foundation law and the legal concept of piercing the corporate veil. Similar to the jurisdiction in Germany the judgment of the OGH from 26.5.2010 seems to put the Liechtenstein Foundation under a general suspicion to present a vehicle for shifting capital in an abusive way. This allegation requires a critical analysis.

On 1.4.2009 a total revision of foundation law in Liechtenstein came into force. Its aim is to preserve the traditional features of the legal instrument while at the same time introducing modern control mechanisms. Indeed it is the Principality and its market participants who are primarily demanded to realise their wish for an improved reputation of the Liechtenstein Foundation. However, the (foreign) courts should accommodate the process by applying established dogmatic principles as well as by treating the Liechtenstein Foundation in line with other foreign legal entities.

•  Arno Wohlgemuth: “Anerkennung deutscher Scheidungsurteile in Russland” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 Recognition of foreign divorce decrees in Russia is regulated by Chapter 45 (Art. 413–415) of the Russian Code of Civil Procedure, 2002, and Art. 160 of the Russian Family Code, 1995. In 2005 the Supreme Court of Russia dismissed the objections by the wife against a German divorce decree pronounced in 2001, when the Russian couple lived in Germany. Apart from default of the time-limit for filing objections, the Russian Supreme Court did not find any grounds for non-recognition enshrined in Art. 412 CCP. Neither international treaties signed by Russia nor formal procedures are prerequisites for recognition in Russia. Predecessors to the rules on recognition of foreign judgements including those on personal status may be discovered in the Ukase of the Presidium of the Supreme Soviet of the USSR of 1988 on Recognition and Enforcement in the USSR of Foreign Court Decisions and of Foreign Arbitral Awards.

•  Philipp Habegger/Anna Masser: “Die revidierte Schweizerische Schiedsgerichtsordnung (Swiss Rules)” – the English abstract reads as follows:

 The revised version of the Swiss Rules of International Arbitration (Swiss Rules) entered into force on 1 June 2012. This article addresses the main changes and innovations. After taking into consideration various provisions which aim at further enhancing the efficiency of arbitral proceedings, special emphasis is put on the revised provision on consolidation and joinder and on the new emergency relief proceedings allowing for interim relief prior to the constitution of an arbitral tribunal. The authors conclude that the revision brings to be welcomed amendments that will lead to even more time and cost efficient proceedings.

•  Carl Friedrich Nordmeier: “Cape Verde: New Rules on International Civil Procedure” (in English)

Since 1.1.2011, a new Code of Civil Procedure is in force in Cape Verde. It is similar to the Portuguese codification of civil procedure law and contains rules on international civil procedure. The present article analyses these new rules on international jurisdiction, on procedures with connection to a foreign country and on recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments. Under the new regime, reciprocity is granted in accordance with § 328 (1) 5 of the German Code of Civil Procedure.

•   Erik Jayme/Carl Zimmer on the conference in Potsdam on cultural relativism: “Kulturelle Relativität – Völkerrecht und Internationales Privatrecht” – Tagung in Potsdam

The third issue of French Journal du droit international (Clunet) for 2012 was just released. It contains two articles addressing issues of private international law and several casenotes. A full table of content is (or will soon be) accessible here.

The first article is the second part of the survey of the French law on arbitration (« Liberté, Égalité, Efficacité » : La devise du nouveau droit français de l’arbitrage – Commentaire article par article) offered by Thomas Clay (Versailles Saint Quentin University). The first part was published in the previous issue of the Journal. The English abstract reads:

It was the long-awaited reform. The arbitration regulation has just been amended and modernized, more than thirty years after the previous regime came into force. This has been achieved by different means : by rewriting certain unclear or outdated sections, by implementing case law-developed solutions already being applied in arbitral proceedings and, finally, by promoting new (sometimes avantgardist) solutions. All the above has resulted in the enactement of a real new Arbitration act.

Therefore, an article-by-article review seems to be a suitable form for an accurate and comprehensive study. This study consists of a comparison between the replaced articles and the new ones, a an analysis of the first commentaries on the reform and an interpretation of the case law following the enactment of the new regulation.

The proposed analysis also evidences the main principles governing the new French law of arbitration. Surprisingly they are in fact rooted in the foundations, not only of private law, but also on the principles of our Republic since they apply (almost perfectly), our Republican maxim, except that brotherhood is substituted by efficiency (the later being more representative).

In conclusion, it is without any doubt a successful text and the long wait was worth it. However it is useful to explain the circumstances of its endless development, which has experienced many disruptions. The article below starts by describing such circumstances.

In the second article, David Sindres, who lectures at Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne University, wonders whether the public policy exception triggered by the proximity of the dispute with the forum is in decline (Vers la disparition de l’ordre public de proximité ?).

Is international public policy based upon proximity disappearing from the French legal landscape ? One may have this feeling in the wake of two recent evolutions of positive law. The first one stems from the adoption of the « Rome III » regulation on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, whose article 10 condemns, without any requirement of proximity, laws which do not grant one of the spouses equal access to divorce or legal separation on grounds of their sex. The second one results from a decision rendered by the French Cour de cassation on October 26, 2011, which opposed international public policy to Ivorian Law insofar as it deprived a child from the right to establish his filiation with his alleged father : once again, the exclusion of foreign law based upon international public policy was not justified by the links between the situation and the French legal order. These two solutions take the opposite view of previous decisions by the Cour de cassation, which had subordinated the intervention of international public policy to the links between the situation and the French legal order in cases purporting to unilateral repudiations and the establishment of filiation.

This decline of international public policy based upon proximity echoes the criticism that this mechanism has drawn from several authors. At the stage of the creation of the situation within the forum, it presents the risk of weakening international public policy. As for the refusal to recognize situations which were created abroad, based upon their links with the French legal order, it proves discriminatory. Under these circumstances a better solution would be to return to the classical distinction between full and attenuated international public policy, which achieves a satisfactory compromise between two objectives of private international law : the protection of the fundamental values of the forum and the respect granted to vested rights.