Tag Archive for: HCCH

HCCH Monthly Update: September 2024

/0 Comments/in /by

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 November 2024, the 2007 Child Support Convention entered into force for Kyrgyzstan. At present, 52 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention. More information is available here.

On 21 November 2024, North Macedonia deposited its instrument of ratification of the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. With the ratification of North Macedonia, 36 States and the European Union are bound by the 2005 Choice of Court Convention. It will enter into force for North Macedonia on 1 March 2025. More information is available here.

Read more

The Moroccan Supreme Court on the Authenticity of an Apostillised Certificate of Conversion to Islam

/1 Comment/in /by

I. Introduction

As mentioned in a previous post, Morocco is not only the MENA Arab jurisdiction that has ratified the largest number of the HCCH Conventions (7 in total), but also a country where the HCCH conventions have been actively applied (see here on the application of the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention, and here for a case involving the application of the HCCH 1996 Child Protection Convention). The application of the HCCH Conventions in Morocco offers valuable insights into how these HCCH instruments operate within an Islamic context, challenging the widely held assumption of the existence of an Islamic exceptionalism (though such exceptionalism does exist, but to a varying degree across the Muslim-majority countries. See e.g. Béligh Elbalti, “The Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Filiation Judgments in Arab Countries” in Nadjma Yassari et al. (ed.), Filiation and the Protection of Parentless Children (T.M.C. Asser Press, 2019), 373-402).

Read more

HCCH Monthly Update: September 2024

/in /by

 

Conventions & Instruments

On 1 September 2024, the 2007 Child Support Convention and the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol entered into force for Georgia. At present, 51 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention, while 33 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. More information is available here.

Read more

13th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Programme (e-APP)

/in /by

The Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) will be hosting the 13th International Forum on the electronic Apostille Programme (e-APP) together the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan and the Maqsut Narikbayev University on 21 and 22 October 2024 in Astana, Kazakhstan.

The full announcement reads as follows:

The e-APP is an integral part of the operation of the HCCH 1961 Apostille Convention. The e-APP is designed to ensure the practical, effective and secure operation of the Apostille Convention in an environment of constant technological development.

The International Forum on the e-APP gathers experts and stakeholders from around the world and provides a unique international platform for governments, organisations, and the private sector to learn more about the benefits of the e-APP, to promote its effective implementation, and to discuss the latest developments in relation to the e-APP worldwide.

The e-APP Forum will be held for the first time in Central Asia and will be jointly organized by the HCCH, the Ministry of Justice of Kazakhstan, and the Maqsut Narikbayev University. Participants are encouraged to attend this event in person, if possible.

Registration is possible here.

 

Formation of the Australasian Association of Private International Law

/4 Comments/in /by

At a meeting on 11 July 2024, 22 lawyers and academics voted to form the Australasian Association of Private International Law (AAPrIL).  Professor Mary Keyes (Griffith University) was elected the inaugural President and the Honourable Dr Andrew Bell, Chief Justice of New South Wales, has agreed to be AAPrIL’s patron.

The AAPrIL’s first elected officers are as follows:

  • President: Professor Mary Keyes (Griffith University, Queensland)
  • Secretary: Professor Reid Mortensen (University of Southern Queensland)
  • Treasurer: Ms Cara North (Corrs Chambers Westgarth, Melbourne)
  • Australian Vice-President: Dr Michael Douglas (Bennett, Perth)
  • New Zealand Vice-President: Mr Jack Wass (Stout Street Chambers, Wellington)

AAPrIL has been established to promoted understanding, awareness and the reform of private international law in Australia, New Zealand and the Pacific Islands, and to provide a regional organisation for cooperation with similar private international law associations across the world.  It plans to hold an annual conference, support regular seminars and roundtables, engage with governments in Australasia on private international law issues and reform, publish a regular newsletter on events and legal developments in the region, and encourage cooperation with the Hague Conference on Private International Law and other private international law inter-governmental organisations.

More details about AAPrIL can be found on its website.  Any enquiries can be made to AAPrIL’s Secretary, Professor Reid Mortensen: reid.mortensen@unisq.edu.au.

This week at The Hague: A few thoughts on the Special Commission on the HCCH Service, Evidence and Access to Justice Conventions

/in /by

Written by Mayela Celis, Maastricht University [updated on 19 July 2024]

The Special Commission on the practical operation of the 1965 Service, 1970 Evidence and 1980 Access to Justice Conventions will take place in The Hague from 2 to 5 July 2024. For more information (incl. all relevant documents), click here. Particularly worthy of note is that this is the first meeting in the history of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH) in which Spanish is an official language  – the new language policy entered into force on 1 July 2024.

A wide range of documents has been drafted for this Special Commission, such as the usual questionnaires on the practical operation and the summary of responses of Contracting States. These documents are referred to as Preliminary Documents (Prel. Doc.). Particularly interesting is the document relating to Contractual Waiver and the Service Convention (i.e. when the parties opt out of the Convention), the conclusions of which I fully endorse (Prel. Doc. No. 12, click here, p. 10).

Country profiles have also been submitted for approval (Prel. Docs 9 and 10), a practice which is in line with what has been done with other HCCH Conventions. A document on civil and commercial matters has also been issued and while it basically restates previous Conclusions and Recommendations, it includes the suggestion made by some States to develop “a list-based approach to identify the scope of “civil or commercial matters”” and recommends not following that route but rather take a case-by-case approach (Prel. Doc. 11, click here) – a very wise approach.

Moreover, it is worth noting that revised versions of the Service and Evidence Handbooks have been submitted for approval. A track changes version of each has been made available on the website of the Hague Conference. The Handbooks are usually only available for purchase on the HCCH website so this is a unique opportunity to view them (although not in final form).

For ease of reference, I include the links below:

Service Handbook (track version, clean version)

Evidence Handbook (track version, clean version)

With regard to the Service Handbook, a few changes are worth underscoring. I will refer to changes in comparison to the 4th edition of the Handbook. While I will refer to the track changes version, please note that not all changes have been marked as changes as this version refers to changes made to an intermediate version circulated internally:

  1. P. 61 of the track changes version – Service on an agent – The clarification of the two lines of cases that have emerged regarding service on an agent (e.g. the US Secretary of State) and whether the document should be sent abroad is particularly interesting.
  2. P. 66 of the track changes version – Service by postal channels on Chinese defendants – The emphasis on China’s opposition to postal channels is particularly significant, given the litigation regarding service on Chinese defendants through postal channels.
  3. P. 69 et seq. of the track changes version – Substituted service – a welcome addition to underscore that this type of service is also used when the Convention does not apply.
  4. P. 87 et seq. of the track changes version – a practical example from Brazil on how to locate a person to be served – this is an interesting example and it enriches the Handbook by including an example from Latin America.
  5. P. 101 et seq of the track changes version and glossary – EU digitalisation – a fleeting reference is made to the modernization initiative of the European Union.
  6. P. 145 et seq of the track changes version – Water Splash, Inc. v Menon decision by the US Supreme Court – The position of the US regarding article 10(a) has been updated and all the previous case law of lower and appeal courts has been deleted.

The above-mentioned changes are very welcome and will be very useful to practitioners.

On a more critical note, it should be noted that it is unfortunate that the Annex on the use of information technology featured in a previous edition of the Service Handbook has been deleted (previously Annex 8). In this Annex, there were references to the latest case law on electronic service by electronic means (approx. 26 pages), including email (incl. references to the first case and the evolution in this regard), Facebook, X previously known as Twitter, message board, etc. and an analysis whether the Service Convention applied and why (not).

Unfortunately, very few excerpts of this Annex have been included throughout the Handbook. The concept of address under Article 1(2) of the Service Convention vs email address is of great importance and it has remained in its place (p. 88 of the track changes version).

As a result, the Service Handbook contains now very few references to “service by e-mail” (1 hit), “electronic service” (3 hits), “e-service” (2 hits) or “service by electronic means” (10 hits, see in particular, p. 100) and no hits for “service by Facebook” or “service by Twitter”. It also seems to focus on e-service executed by Central Authorities of the requested State according to domestic laws (as opposed to direct service by email across States). And in this regard, see for example the comment from China (Prel. Doc. 15, click here, p. 41).

Having said that, an additional document on IT was drafted (Prel. Doc. No 13, click here), which summarises the way in which information technology can be used to enhance the above-mentioned Hague Conventions and focuses specifically on electronic transmission, electronic service and video-link.

With regard to e-service, Preliminary Document No 13 notes among other things that Contracting Parties remain divided as to whether or not service – of process or otherwise – via e-mail or other forms of e-service is within the scope of Article 10(a) postal channels (p. 9). See in this regard the comment from the European Union (Prel. Doc. 15, click here, p. 38). This casts a shadow on the ‘functional equivalence’ approach of this Convention. Moreover, this document only discusses e-service very briefly and the literature referred to in the Prel. Doc. is outdated pertaining to one or two decades ago. On the other hand, however, reference is made to the 2022 responses to the Questionnaire and two recent cases.

Another perhaps unfortunate deletion is the relationship between the Service Convention and the applicable EU regulation (No. 2020/1784). The Handbook merely dedicates a half page to this important relationship (p. 169 of the track changes version) and does not analyse the similarities and the differences between them, as was the case in previous versions. A missed opportunity.

On a positive note, the graphs and tables have been improved and made more reader-friendly and a new Annex has been included “Joining the Convention” (new States can only accede to the Convention).

With regard to Evidence Handbook, it could be noted that this Handbook has been subject to a more recent update in 2020, as well as the publication of a Guide to Good Practice on Video-Link in the same year. Therefore, in a way there are less new developments to include. In particular, it has been noted that sections of the Guide to Good Practice on Video-Link have been included into the Evidence Handbook. A question may then arise as to whether the Guide will remain a stand-alone document (but apparently, it will not – for now the free version of the GGP can be downloaded. Hopefully, the Handbook will also be translated into as many languages as the Guide was).

As with the Service Handbook, the graphs and tables have been improved and made more reader-friendly.

Of great significance is the delicate split of views with regard to the possibility of obtaining direct taking of evidence by video-link under Chapter I of the Evidence Convention. In my view, this is the Achilles’ heel of the Evidence Convention since without direct taking of evidence under Chapter I, there is a real danger that this instrument has become obsolete. Let alone the fact that the Evidence Convention has no specific safeguards for the direct taking of evidence.

In sum, the Service and Evidence Conventions work well in a paper environment. However, these Conventions are struggling to keep up with technological developments as some States are reluctant to accept the ‘functional equivalence’ approach of some of their provisions, in particular art. 10(a) of the Service Convention and art. 9(2) of the Evidence Convention (direct service by postal channels and direct taking of evidence by the requesting State). An easier implementation of IT is the electronic transmission of requests, something that is left as a long-term goal (see below), the effecting of e-service by the Central Authority of the requested State or the use of video-link in the indirect taking of evidence. A question then arises as to how fit are these Conventions for the future and that is something that only time will tell.

This aside – the updating of the Handbooks and the drafting of the preliminary documents is a huge enterprise. The drafters should be congratulated, as these documents will certainly be of great benefit to the users of both Conventions.

At the end of a meeting of the Special Commission, Conclusions and Recommendations are adopted.  In this regard, Prel. Doc. No. 13 submits a few proposals regarding information technology (see pages 15-17). In particular, it stands out [for the long-term] “the proposal for the development of an international system to facilitate the e-transmission of requests or alternatively, to propose how a decentralised system of platforms for the transmission of requests may function effectively.” In that respect, a question arises as to how to combine synergies and avoid overlapping efforts at the international and the EU level.

[Update of 19 July 2024]

The Special Commission (SC) adopted 138 Conclusions & Recommendations (C&R), some of which paraphrase previous C&R – and are identified as such – with some updated text.

Below I include the most relevant C&R with regard to this post. For the full version, click here (also available in French and Spanish, click here).

General Conclusions and Recommendations regarding IT [information technology]

C&R 10-14, see in particular:

13 The SC emphasised that the Conventions operate in an environment which is subject to important technological developments, which have been further stimulated by the COVID-19 pandemic. Although the evolutionary use of IT could not be foreseen at the time of the adoption of the Conventions, the SC reiterated that IT is an integral part of today’s society and its usage is a matter of fact. In this respect, the SC recalled that the spirit and letter of the Conventions do not constitute an obstacle to the usage of IT, and that the application and operation of the Conventions can be further improved by relying on such technology. [See C&R No 4 of the 2003 SC, C&R No 3 of the 2009 SC].

Use of IT – taking evidence by video-link

C&R 46-51, see in particular:

51 The SC acknowledged the different views regarding the use of video-link to take evidence directly under Chapter I [Letters of Request], despite the benefits that it can bring. The SC encouraged Contracting Parties which permit the direct taking of evidence by video-link under Chapter I [Letters of Requests] to provide more information to the PB [Permanent Bureau of the HCCH] about how this occurs in practice so that examples can be summarised and included in the Evidence Handbook and, if required, further information can be developed to inform Contracting Parties on this issue. (Our emphasis as this is precisely the problem highlighted above).

Use of IT (service by digital means – the Service Convention)

73 The SC also recognised that in some domestic legal systems the relevant legal procedures and technological conditions do not allow for service by electronic means, although in certain systems the use of e-mail and online platforms is permitted in certain circumstances, particularly where approved by the judicial authority in advance or there is prior consent by the addressee. [See C&R No 64 of the 2003 SC]. (Our emphasis, same as above).

74 The SC noted that, subject to the domestic law of the requested State, requests for service transmitted under the main channel of transmission (the Central Authority) may be executed by electronic means under Article 5. The SC also noted developments in the use of IT under the alternative channels of Article 10. [See C&R No 37 of the 2014 SC].

Alternative channels of transmission – Service by e-mail

105 The SC noted that Article 10(a) [of the Service Convention] includes transmission and service by e-mail, insofar as such method is provided by the law of the State of origin and permitted under the law of the State of destination. The SC reiterated that service by e-mail under Article 10(a) [of the Service Convention] must meet the requirements established under Article 1 of the [Service] Convention, in particular that the addressee’s physical address in the State of destination is known. The SC noted that e-mail domains are not sufficient for locating the person to be served under Article 10(a). (Our emphasis, as this is particularly complex to determine and prove).

106 The SC reiterated that Contracting Parties may impose other requirements and safeguards regarding the use of e-mail under Article 10(a) [of the Service Convention] and encouraged Contracting Parties to indicate any such requirements in their Country Profiles.

Relationship of the [Service] Convention with other instruments

110 Recalling the relationship of the [Service] Convention with other instruments, the SC recommended greater elaboration in the Service Handbook on such relationship, including with regional and bilateral instruments. The SC encouraged Contracting Parties to provide information about all other instruments that would apply in parallel with the Service Convention in their Country Profiles.

This is in line with what I stated above. See also C&R No 58, which replicates this Conclusion regarding the Evidence Convention

Contractual waivers and the Convention

111 The SC took note of a case reported by one Contracting Party in which the court found that the parties’ agreement to use alternative means of notification constituted a waiver of formal service of process under the applicable law. The SC recalled the Convention’s non-mandatory, but exclusive, character, according to which the [Service] Convention will only apply if the domestic law of the forum determines that there is occasion to transmit a document for service abroad; if so, one of the available channels under the Convention must be used. The SC also stressed the potentially negative impact of such contractual agreements, namely, in relation to the protection of defendants under Articles 15 and 16 of the [Service] Convention, and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in the Contracting Party. The SC further questioned the effect of privately negotiated agreements in light of Contracting Parties’ declarations and reservations. (As suggested by the relevant Preliminary Document).

“Civil or commercial matters” under the Service and Evidence Conventions

125 The SC noted that some Contracting Parties do not regard as “civil or commercial matters” claims in relation to acts of States in the exercise of State authority.

126 The SC recommended that rather than Contracting Parties developing a list-based approach to identify the scope of “civil or commercial matters”, Contracting Parties consider requests on a case-by-case basis, with the aim of providing the broadest possible cross-border judicial cooperation. (As suggested by the relevant Preliminary Document).

Handbooks

131 The SC approved, in-principle, the fifth edition of the Handbooks, while noting that further amendments will be made, including incorporating the discussions at the SC meeting and relevant C&R, in cooperation with the Working Groups. The SC recommended to CGAP to approve the Handbooks.

Future work

137 The SC encouraged Contracting Parties to meet online to further discuss and exchange experiences to develop a deeper understanding of the use of IT and to develop further guidance for e-transmission and associated matters. These discussions will be supported by, or conducted under the auspices of, the PB. Such meetings will be held by way of online workshops for Central Authorities and other users of the Service and Evidence Conventions.

 

The United Kingdom has ratified the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention

/in /by

This week the United Kingdom ratified the HCCH 2019 Judgments Convention. The Convention will enter into force for the United Kingdom on 1 July 2025. For more information, see the status table here.

The United Kingdom has made only one declaration so far:

27-06-2024
The United Kingdom declares, in accordance with Article 25, that the Convention shall extend to England and Wales only, and that it may at any time submit other declarations or modify this declaration in accordance with Article 30 of the Convention.

For the full notification, click here.

For the HCCH news item, click here.

 

Call for the 2025 Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship

/in /by

The Australian Institute of International Affairs (AIIA) and the Australian Branch of the International Law Association (ILA (AB)) are pleased to present the Peter Nygh Hague Conference Internship.

Read more

HCCH Monthly Update: May 2024

/in /by

Conventions & Instruments

On 14 May 2024, Georgia deposited its instrument of ratification of the 2007 Child Support Convention and of the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. With the ratification of Georgia, 51 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Child Support Convention, while 32 States and the European Union are bound by the 2007 Maintenance Obligations Protocol. More information is available here.

 

Meetings & Events

On 14 May 2024, the kick-off meeting of the Experts’ Group (EG) on Central Bank Digital Currencies (CBDCs) was held online. Pursuant to its mandate, the EG will study the applicable law and jurisdiction issues raised by the cross-border use and transfers of CBDCs. More information is available here.

From 14 to 17 May 2024, the First Regional Meeting of Judges of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ) from Latin America and the Caribbean was held in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil, with the aim of fostering discussion on the proper and effective implementation of the 1980 Child Abduction Convention. More information is available here.

On 15 May 2024, the kick-off meeting of the Digital Tokens Project was held online. Under this project, the Permanent Bureau of the HCCH, in partnership with relevant subject-matter experts and Observers, is studying the private international law issues relating to digital tokens. More information is available here.

On 17 and 21 May 2024, the first meetings of the Working Groups on the Practical Handbooks and Country Profiles for the 1965 Service and 1970 Convention were held online. More information is available here.

On 29 May 2024, the first meeting of the Working Group established to complete the Country Profile and work on the draft Cooperation Request Recommended Model Form for the 1996 Child Protection Convention was held online. More information is available here.

 

Calls for Tender

The HCCH recently published a call for tenders for the development of electronic Country Profiles (e-Country Profiles) for a number of key HCCH Conventions. The deadline for the submission of tenders is 27 August 2024 (17:00 CEST). More information is available here.

 

These monthly updates are published by the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH), providing an overview of the latest developments. More information and materials are available on the HCCH website.

There and Back Again? – The unexpected journey of EU-UK Judicial Cooperation finally leads to The Hague

/in /by

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, 11th 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, 11th 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.”