Tag Archive for: international jurisdiction

Commission Report and Staff Working Document on Brussels I recast

/0 Comments/in /by

Today the European Commission published its eagerly awaited Commission Report on the application of the Brussels Ia Regulation (also referred to as Brussels I-bis), No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast). The Report is accompanied by a Staff Working Document, detailing a number of selected topics addressed in the Report. The documents rely in particular on the extensive Evaluation Study that was published in January 2023 as well as the findings of the JUDGTRUST project and the resulting book.

The Report states that it is ‘generally agreed that the Regulation is a highly successful instrument’ and that the enhancements, including the abolition of the exequatur, have strengthened judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters. Its overall ‘clear and simple’ rules are ‘highly appreciated amongst practitioners. The Report also emphasizes the essential role of the CJEU case law in interpreting and applying the rules. While several complex issues require clarification, given the ‘general satisfaction with the operation of the Regulation, any modifications should respond to real practical difficulties and should not lead to an overhaul of the well functioning system of the Regulation’, according to the Commission.

The Report addresses the scope of application laid down in Art. 1  (in particular the exclusion of arbitration) as well as a number of issues in applying Arts. 2 and 3, including definitions (in particular the term ‘judgment’ in relation to provision and protective measures, and definition of ‘court’ referring to the Pula Parking judgment, see here).

As regards the scope of the jurisdiction rules, the much debated issue of the (non) application to third-country defendants and possible extension is addressed. Topics pointed out in relation to the special, alternative jurisdiction rules in Arts. 7-9 include the increasingly broad interpretation of ‘matters relating to a contract’, determining the place of performance  of contractual obligations (Art. 7, para 1), and as regards torts (Art. 7, para 2) the often problematic determination of the place of damage of pure financial loss (similar to Rome II Regulation, see also here) and the application of the mosaic principle in cases regarding the violation of privacy rights. As to the latter, reference is also made to the (negative) implication in SLAPP cases and the Anti-SLAPP directive, which was adopted in 2024. A number of issues are pointed out in applying the consumer protective rules in Arts. 17-19, including the notion of ‘consumer’, the phrase ‘directing of commercial activity’, the exclusion of transport contracts as well as their non-applicability in collective redress actions, where cases are brought by a representative organisation. A few minor (formulation) issues in the application of Art 24 on exclusive jurisdiction are pointed out.

As regards the rules on recognition and enforcement, it is concluded that the system of the recast Regulation, which abolished the declaration of enforceability (exequatur) works generally well in practice and has had a positive effect on the costs and workload of courts. The Report refers to a number of CJEU rulings on the application of the public policy exception, including in the cases Diageo Brands, H Limited and most recently, the Real Madrid. The CJEU upheld the restrictive application of the public policy exception, though created room for its application in the latter case in which the violation of a fundamental right under the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights (freedom of press) was at stake.

Lastly, the Report reflects on the relationship with other instruments (Arts. 67-74), referencing in particular the Lugano Convention, the New York Convention, bilateral conventions of Member States with third states, and the establishment of the “United” (this should be “Unified”) Patent Court.

A number of important horizontal issues that are pointed out are that of the potential problematic application in collective redress cases, as is also clear from a number of rulings of the CJEU, and the impact of digitalisation, including the increase of digital content and blockchain technologies, and the digitalisation of judicial procedures.

In conclusion, the Commission will initiate ‘a formal review of the Regulation in order to consider and potentially prepare a proposal to amend or recast the Regulation in accordance with the Better Regulation rules’. Highlighted topics in this context are:

  • (once again) the extension of the rules of jurisdiction to cover defendants not domiciled in a Member State
  • provisions on the scope and definitions, in particular the exclusion of arbitration, the notion of ‘court or tribunal‘ and ‘provisional, including protective, measures‘
  • simplifying and enhancing the effectiveness of the provisions on jurisdiction, in particular Arts. 7(1) on contracts and 7(2) on torts, as well as those on consumer contracts
  • further streamlining and simplifying the rules on recognition and enforcement
  • necessary procedural tools in relation to collective redress
  • coordination between the Regulation and international instruments, and
  • ways to modernise and simplify procedures as part of the digital reform of civil justice systems

To be continued!

Conflictoflaws will organise an online roundtable on designated topics of the report, following the succesful roundtable on Rome II – Stay tuned

Caught Between Legal Boundaries: Child Custody Disputes Across Japan and Bangladesh

/in /by

I would like to express my sincere gratitude to MD Sanwar HOSSAIN, LLB (Hons) Wolverhampton University, MSS (Dhaka University), PgDiP (Northumbria University), Barrister at law (Hon’ble Society of Lincoln’s Inn), Advocate (Appellate Division) Supreme Court of Bangladesh and Managing Partner, S Hossain & Associates law office, for bringing the Bangladesh courts’ decisions to my attention.

 

I. Introduction

The breakdown of an international marriage often leads to complex cross-border disputes, especially when children are involved. Tensions can intensify if one parent decides to take the children to their home country, often without the consent of the other parent.

In such cases, when the countries involved are signatories to the HCCH 1980 Child Abduction Convention, the Convention’s mechanisms are designed to facilitate the prompt return of children to their country of habitual residence. This framework aims to prevent unilateral relocations that could have lasting impacts on the child’s stability. However, when one or both countries are not parties to the Convention, resolving such cases becomes significantly more challenging. In such cases, national courts are compelled to address competing custody claims, assess allegations of wrongful removal, and determine whether they have jurisdiction to hear the case, all while balancing, often quite differently, the best interests of the children involved.

The case presented here is just one of many unreported cases where a romance relationship turns sour, leading to lengthy and contentious legal battles across jurisdictions. This note will focus on the Bangladeshi court’s treatment of the case, as it offers useful insights into the court’s approach to handling such complex cross-border disputes.

Read more

The Bahraini Supreme Court on Choice of Court Agreements, Bases of Jurisdiction and… Forum non Conveniens!

/1 Comment/in /by

I. Introduction:

In a previous post on this blog, I reported a decision rendered by the Bahrain High Court in which the court refused to enforce a choice of court agreement in favour of English courts. The refusal was based on the grounds that the case was brought against a Bahraini defendant and that rules of international jurisdiction are mandatory. The Bahraini Supreme Court’s decision reported here is a subsequent development on the same case. The ruling is significant for many reasons. In a methodical manner, the Supreme Court identified the foundational justifications for the jurisdictional rules applied in Bahrain. Moreover, it clarified the role and effect of choice of court agreements, particularly their derogative effect. Finally, and somehow surprisingly, the Court supported its position by invoking to “the doctrine of forum non conveniens”, explicitly mentioned in its decision. Read more

Bostanji on immunities and international jurisdiction in Tunisian private international law

/in /by

“Droit international privé – Immunités de juridiction et competence internationales des tribunaux tunisiens” (Private International Law – Jurisdictional Immunity and International Jurisdiction of Tunisian Courts) is the title of the long-awaited book recently published by Prof. Sami Bostanji, a distinguished Professor at the Faculté de droit et des sciences politiques de Tunis, Director of the DRIMAN research center, and one of the leading private international law scholars in Tunisia. Read more

Conference on Rethinking Jurisdiction in Private International Law (1 & 2 August 2024 @ CUHK)

/in /by

This information is kindly provided by Dr. King Fung (Dicky) Tsang, Associate Professor, the Chinese University of Hong Kong.

 

CUHK LAW will host an international conference on private international law from August 1, 2024, to August 2, 2024.

 

Theme

The theme of the conference is “Rethinking Jurisdiction in Private International Law.” Jurisdiction is a broad concept in private international law that includes legislative, judicial, and enforcement aspects. Over the past few years, there have been significant developments in the area of jurisdiction across various countries. These developments, while rooted in national law, have extensive cross-border impacts. Additionally, the HCCH Jurisdiction Project has engaged many countries in focusing on jurisdictional issues and seeking to harmonize jurisdictional conflicts. This conference offers a forum for academics and practitioners to rethink and exchange ideas on the evolving new features of “jurisdiction” in the context of private international law.

This conference is supported by Hitotsubashi University.

 

Speakers, Abstracts and Programme:

The lists of the speakers, abstracts and the programme can be found respectively here, here and here

 

Venue:

The Conference will be held at the Cheng Yu Tung Building (CYT) which is located in Sha Tin, Hong Kong.

Address:
LT1A, 1/F, Cheng Yu Tung Building (CYT), The Chinese University of Hong Kong (Map)

Transportation:
MTR: Get off at the University Station. CYT Building is just 1-minute walk away from Exit B.

 

Languages:

The first day will be conducted in English, while the second day will mainly be in Mandarin Chinese. Attendees are welcome to participate in sessions on both days.

 

Details and registration

Please visit the conference website for more details. If you would like to attend, kindly register here by 31 July 2024, 3:00 pm.

For enquiries, please contact CUHK LAW at law@cuhk.edu.hk.

 

FACULTY OF LAW

The Chinese University of Hong Kong | Shatin, NT, Hong Kong SAR, China

T: +852 3943 4399 | E: law@cuhk.edu.hk | W: https://www.law.cuhk.edu.hk

 

The Abu Dhabi Civil Family Court on the Law on Civil Marriage – Applicability to Foreign Muslims and the Complex Issue of International Jurisdiction

/in /by
Read more

International tech litigation reaches the next level: collective actions against TikTok and Google

/in /by

Written by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam/Utrecht University) & Eduardo Silva de Freitas (Erasmus University Rotterdam), members of the Vici project Affordable Access to Justice, financed by the Dutch Research Council (NWO), www.euciviljustice.eu.

Introduction

We have reported on the Dutch WAMCA procedure for collective actions in a number of previous blogposts. This collective action procedure was introduced on 1 January 2020, enabling claims for damages, and has since resulted in a stream of (interim) judgments addressing different aspects in the preliminary stages of the procedure. This includes questions on the admissibility and funding requirements, some of which are also of importance as examples for the rolling out of the Representative Action Directive for consumers in other Member States. It also poses very interesting questions of private international law, as in particular the collective actions for damages against tech giants are usually international cases. We refer in particular to earlier blogposts on international jurisdiction in the privacy case against TikTok and the referral to the CJEU regarding international jurisdiction under the Brussels I-bis Regulation in the competition case against Apple.

Read more

International Jurisdiction between Nationality and Domicile in Tunisian Private International Law – Has the Perennial Debate Finally been Resolved?

/in /by

I would like to thank Prof. Lotfi Chedly for providing me with the text of the decision on which this post is based.

 

I. Introduction

Scholars of private international law are well familiar with the classic debate on nationality and domicile as connecting factors in the choice of applicable law (see, for example, L. I. de Winter, “Nationality or Domicile? The Present State of Affairs” 128 Collected Courses III (1969) pp. 357 ff). In Tunisian private international law, this controversy has been particularly pronounced with regard to the role of nationality as a ground for the international jurisdiction of Tunisian courts. Since the enactment of the Tunisian Private International Law Code (“PILC”) in 1998 (for an English translation, see J. Basedow et al. (eds.) Encyclopedia of Private International Law – Vol. IV (Elgar Editions, 2017) 3895 and my own translation of the provisions dealing with international jurisdiction and the enforcement of foreign judgments in 8 Journal of Private International Law 2 (2012) pp. 221 ff)), the debate between opponents and proponents of nationality as a ground for international jurisdiction, especially in family law matters, has never ceased to be intense (for detailed analyses, see eg. Salma Triki, “La compétence internationale tunisienne et le critère de nationalité” in Ben Achour/Triki (eds.), Le Code de droit international privé – Vingt ans d’application (1998-2018) (Latrach edition, 2020) 119ff). This divergence in academic opinion is also reflected in the judicial practice of the courts, with the emergence of two opposing trends: one extends the international jurisdiction of the Tunisian courts when the dispute involves a Tunisian party, in particular as a defendant even when domiciled abroad. The other firmly rejects nationality as a ground for international jurisdiction.

Read more

Bahraini High Court on Choice of Court and Choice of Law Agreements

/4 Comments/in /by

I. Introduction

It is widely recognized that choice of court and choice of law agreements are powerful tools for structuring and planning international dispute resolution. These agreements play an important role in “increasing legal certainty for the parties in cross-border transactions and reducing incentives for (the harmful version of) forum shopping.” (Alex Mills, Party Autonomy in Private International Law (CUP, 2018) p. 75). However, the realization of these objectives depends on the enforcement of the parties’ choice. Unfortunately, general practice in the MENA (North Africa and the Middle East) region shows that, with a few exceptions, the status quo is far from satisfactory. Choice-of-court agreements conferring jurisdiction on foreign courts are often disregarded or declared null and void. Similarly, the foreign law chosen as the governing law of a contract is often not applied because of the procedural status of foreign law as a matter of fact, the content of which must be ascertained by the party invoking its application. The recent judgment of the High Court of Bahrain (a first instance court in the Bahraini judicial system) in the Case No. 2/13276/2023/02 of 17 January 2024 is nothing but another example of this entrenched practice that can be observed in the vast majority of countries in the region.

Read more

Virtual Workshop (in German) on February 1: Wolfgang Wurmnest on International Jurisdiction for Antitrust Violation Claims

/in /by

On Tuesday, Feb 1, 2022, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its  monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Wolfgang Wurmnest (University Hamburg) will speak, in German, about the topic.

International Jurisdiction for Antitrust Violation Claims

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.