Archive for category Conflict of Laws /Private international law
In Bournemouth, Christchurch and Poole Council v KC et al  EWFC 20, Dancey J at 62 ff is the first UK judge to my knowledge to discuss the implications of the UK’s separation from the EU’s civil procedure /justice and home affairs agenda, particularly in the transition period. It includes a discussion of the UK’s Brexit (EU Exit) Regulations 2019/2003, reg 3, and the European Commission notice on transition provisions.
The care proceedings concern W, a girl aged 9, nearly 10. W’s parents, who were married, are Polish nationals and W was born there. Following the separation of the parents in Poland in April 2016, contested contact proceedings there resulted in an order providing that W live with the mother with contact to the father. The father’s parental responsibility was limited to decisions about medical treatment and education. Following the breakdown of the father’s contact with W, the mother brought her to the UK in June 2018 where they have remained since. That was done without the father’s agreement, although he was aware the mother planned to relocate and acquiesced once the move had taken place. The mother did not tell the father of her and W’s location within the UK.
The legal framework therefore is Brussels IIa, Regulation 2201/2003. Dancey J at 63 concedes that by reg 8 of 2019/2003, dealing with saving/transitional provisions, the UK’s revocation from Brussels IIa does not apply to proceedings before a court in a Member State seised before 31 December 2020. However he then refers to the EC Notice to Stakeholders: Withdrawal of the United Kingdom and EU Rules in the Field of Civil Justice and Private International Law: 18/1/2019, and suggests it means that EU rules on recognition and enforcement will not apply to a UK judgment, even if the judgment was given, or enforcement proceedings started, before 1 January 2021 unless the judgment has been exequatured (declared enforceable by the courts of the Member State where recognition or enforcement is required) before 1 January 2021. Support for his opinion is found I suspect mostly in Heading 2.2 of that Notice – although I should warn against the matter of factly nature of that notice without much justification given for the positions it takes.
At 66 Dancey J suggests in practice the consequence should not be too dramatic in the case at issue for ‘one or other of the parents should apply promptly in Poland for a declaration recognising this judgment and the order that will follow (exequaturing the judgment).’ That absence of real delay in the case at issue may well be true (it is confirmed by a letter from the Polish consulate) however the implications are already clear and no surprise. Enforcement of UK judgments will be a lot less smooth post Brexit.
Are proclamations of lois de police an absolute prerogative of the Member States? Italy’s response to Covid19 /Corona and the package travel sector.
Thank you Ennio Piovesani for signalling and reviewing one of the first conflicts-specific developments on the Corona /Covid 19 landscape. Update 28 March 2020 see the comments on and Ennio’s comprehensive response to his own post and comments, for further interesting discussion going beyond the immediate Corona context.
In an effort to safeguard the economic position of the travel sector, the Italian Government by decree has essentially frozen the travel sector’s statutory duty to reimburse travellers whose package travel has become impossible due to the pandemic. Ennio reports that the decree refers specifically to Article 9 Rome I’s overriding mandatory law provisions (earlier applied in Unamar), (in his translation): ‘“The provisions of the present article constitute overriding mandatory provisions within the meaning of Article 17 of Law of 31 May 1995, No. 218 [“Italian PIL Act”] [5, 6] and of Article 9 of Regulation (EU) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council, of 17 June 2008 [“Rome 1 Regulation”]”.
Ennio signals and important issue: how much leeway may be given to Member States to push their own definition of the concept of ‘lois de police’ /overriding mandatory law in light of the CJEU definition in Joined Cases C-369/96 and C-376/96 Arblade. In Brussels Ia of course the CJEU has pushed the concept of ordre public in a limited direction. Lois de police however are different from ordre public and Rome I is not Brussels Ia, and I am therefore not so pessimistic as Ennio when it comes to leaving a lot of discretion to Member States. What to me looks a touch more problematic is the relation with the package travel Directive 2015/2302 which applies to many of the travel arrangements concerned and which is the source of many of the protections for travellers.
No doubt to be continued.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3, Heading 184.108.40.206.
Pandya v Intersalonika. Plenty of (appealable?) things to chew on re limitation periods and Rome II.
Many thanks 2TG for initially flagging the judgment, and for Maura McIntosh and colleagues not just for further reviewing it but also for sending me copy: for the case has not yet appeared on the usual sites.
In Pandya v Intersalonika  EWHC 273 (QB), Tipples J held that proceedings were time-barred in accordance with Greek law as the lex causae, where the claim form was issued in the English courts before the expiry of the applicable Greek limitation period, but was not served until after that period had expired.
The claim arises out of a road traffic accident that happened in Kos, Greece on 29 July 2012. The claimant is a UK national and was on holiday in Kos with her family when she was struck by a motorcycle as she was crossing the road. The claimant suffered a severe traumatic brain injury and was then aged fifteen. Defendant is the Greek-registered insurance company which provided insurance to the motorcyclist or the motorcycle that he was riding.
That claimant is entitled to sue the insurer in England is not of course, contrary to Tipples J passing reference, a result of Rome II but rather of Brussels IA. Jurisdiction however at any rate was not under discussion.
Defendant then relies on A15(h) Rome II to argue a time bar under Greek law, the lex locus damni: service of the claim is a rule of Greek law in relation to limitation and a claim has to be issued and served to interrupt the limitation period. This means that the requirement of service cannot be severed, or downgraded, to a step which is simply governed by the rules of civil procedure under English law. Claimant by contrast argues that service of the claim is a point of pure procedure, which falls squarely within Article 1(3) and is governed by the rules of civil procedure under English law.
At 25 ff Tipples J discusses the issue (I highlight the most relevant arguments; compare nb with the situation under the Rome Convention in Mineworkers):
- starting with the principle of autonomous interpretation;
- further, a need for wide interpretation of A15 which she derives from its non-exhaustive character. I do not agree that non-exhaustive listings necessarily equate broad interpretations;
- thirdly the need, by contrast, to interpret A1(3) narrowly ‘because it is an exception’ to the general rule of lex locus damni in A4. This too I disagree with: A1(3) states it ‘it shall not apply to evidence and procedure, without prejudice to Articles 21 and 22’ (which concern formal validity and burden of proof). In my view A1(3) like A1(2) defines the scope of application, like A1(2). It is listed separately from the issues in A1(2) for unlike those issues, part of the excluded subject-matter is partially brought back into the scope of application. If anything therefore needs to be interpreted restrictively, it is the partial cover of evidence and procedure. Seemingly between parties however this was not disputed.
- Further support is found in Dicey & Morris 15th ed., which refers to Wall v Mutuelle de Poitiers a case which discusses the issues somewhat, yet if anything more in support of English law applying to the discussion in Pandya rather than the other way around. (A reference further on in Andrew Dickinson’s Rome II Volume with OUP in my mind, too, further underlines the opaqueness of the A1 /A15 distinction and does not clearly lend support pro the lex causae argument).
- Fifth, predictability and certainty are cited in support however how these gazump exclusions from the scope of application is not clear to me.
- Finally PJSC Tatneft v Bogolyubov is referred to but dismissed as irrelevant (which surprises me).
Held: the claim was time-barred and therefore dismissed.
I would suggest there is plenty of scope for appeal here.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3.
Petrobas securities class action. Applicable law update: Dutch court holds under Rome II on lex causae in tort for purely economic loss. Place of listing wins the day (and leads to Mozaik).
Thank you Matthias Lehmann for flagging and reviewing the Rotterdam Court’s judgment late in January on applicable law in the Petrobas case. I had earlier reviewed the jurisdictional issues, particularly the application of Brussels Ia’s Article 33-34.
The case relates to a Brazilian criminal investigation into alleged bribery schemes within Petrobras, which took place between 2004 and 2014. The court first, and of less interest for the blog, deals with a representation issue, holding that Portuguese speakers cannot be represented in the class, for the Portuguese version of the relevant dispute settlement provisions, unlike the English translation, was not faulty.
Turning then to applicable law at 5.39 ff. Events occurring on or after 12 January 2009 are subject to the Rome II Regulation. For those before that date, Dutch residual PIL applies which the Court held make Brazilian law lex causae as lex loci delicti commissi: for that is where the alleged fraud, bribery and witholding of information happened.
For the events which are covered by Rome II, the court does not wait for the CJEU finding in VEB v BP and squarely takes inspiration from the CJEU case-law on purely financial damage and jurisdiction: Kronhofer, Kolassa, Universal Music. The court notes that the CJEU in these cases emphasised a more than passing or incidental contact with a State (such as: merely the presence of a bank account) as being required to establish jurisdiction as locus damni. At 5.47 it rejects the place of the investor’s account as relevant (for this may change rapidly and frequently over time and may also be easily manipulated) and it identifies the place of the market where the financial instruments are listed and traded as being such a place with a particular connection to the case: it is the place where the value of the instruments is impacted and manifests itself. It is also a place that meets with the requirements of predictability and legal certainty: neither buyer nor seller will be surprised that that location should provide lex causae.
Conclusion therefore is one of Mozaik: Brasil, Argentina, Germany, Luxembourg are lex causae as indeed may be other places where Petrobas financial instruments are listed. (At 5.49: Article 4(2)’s joint domicile exception may make Dutch law the lex causae depending on who sues whom).
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed.2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.4.
Parentnapping by children of their vulnerable father: The High Court in QD on the Hague Convention and habitual residence.
IN  EWCOP 56 QD, Cobb J in the Court of Protection applied the Hague Convention on the International Protection of Adults to a removal from Spain by the children of his first marriage, of an adult father suffering from Lewy Body Dementia, a progressive neurodegenerative dementia, without consent of the new wife. Following the removal the children seek an order that he reside at a care home in England, that he not return to Spain, and that he have only supervised contact with his wife.
Cobb J decided that the English courts do not have jurisdiction given that in his judgment the father is habitually resident in Spain, with at 28-29 a list of the reasons leading to his conclusion (it includes a negative view on the removal ‘by stealth’, as well as particular emphasis on the father’s expressed will to live in Spain when he was not yet incapacitated). The common law doctrine of necessity does not alter this as alternative, less drastic measures could and should have been sought first (such as alerting Spanish social services; at 29).
The judge did make use of his limited urgency jurisdiction to issue a ‘protective measures’ order which provides for the father to remain at and be cared for at home he resides in, and to continue the authorisation of the deprivation of his liberty there only until such time as the national authorities in Spain have determined what should happen next. It is for the Spanish administrative or judicial authorities to determine the next step, which may of course be to confer jurisdiction on the English courts to make the relevant decision(s).