Conflict of Laws .net

Recently, the May/June issue of the German legal journal “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was released.

It contains the following articles/case notes (including the reviewed decisions):

• M. Stürner: “Staatenimmunität und Brüssel I-Verordnung – Die zivilprozessuale Behandlung von Entschädigungsklagen wegen Kriegsverbrechen im Europäischen Justizraum” - The English abstract reads as follows:

The article examines the impact of the law of State immunity on the scope of international jurisdiction under the Brussels I Regulation. Recently the appellate court of Florence, Italy, has granted enforceability to a judgment in which the Greek Supreme Court, the Areios Pagos, had awarded damages to descendants of victims of a massacre committed in 1944 by German SS militia in the village of Dístomo, Greece. Both Greek and Italian courts have based their jurisdiction on an exception to State immunity which was held to exist in cases of grave human rights violations. This standpoint, however, does not reflect the present state of public international law, nor does it take into account the intertemporal dimension of public international law rules. Neither under the Brussels I regime, nor under domestic Italian law a judgment which was rendered in violation of customary State immunity rules can be recognized or enforced. The Brussels Regulation has a limited scope of application. It is designed to respect public international law rules of State immunity, not to trump them. The Regulation therefore does not apply in cases where the defendant enjoys immunity from civil jurisdiction.

• L. de Lima Pinheiro: “Competition between legal systems in the European Union and private international law”
  The author discusses the idea of competition between national legal systems and focuses on two aspects: Competition between legal systems and juridical pluralism and competition between legal systems and freedom of choice. Further, the author outlines the mission of private international law in the existing framework of legal pluralism within the EU by emphasising the importance of private international law in a world characterised by globalisation and legal pluralism which should, in the author’s view, be reflected in an essential place of private international law in the teaching of law.

• P. Scholz:“Die Internationalisierung des deutschen ordre public und ihre Grenzen am Beispiel islamisch geprägten Rechts”
  The author examines the internationalisation of the German public policy clause and argues that human rights guaranteed in European and international law have to be taken into account within the framework of German public policy. Further there is, according to the author, no room for a relativization of the German public policy clause in case of internationally guaranteed human rights. Concerns which are expressed towards a supremacy of German values disregarding foreign legal systems are rebutted by the author in reference to the, for several reasons, only limited application of internationally guaranteed human rights.

• M. Heckel: “Die fiktive Inlandszustellung auf dem Rückzug – Rückwirkungen des europäischen Zustellungsrechts auf das nationale Recht”
  The author examines the impact of the European provisions of service on national law and argues that internal fictional service is, as a consequence of European law, at the retreat in Europe. Nevertheless, internal fictional service is - according to the author - in principle compatible with European law. It was only the statement of claim which had to be served effectively. In case of a fictional service of a statement of claim, a subsequent judgment in default could neither be recognised nor declared enforceable. In view of the right to be heard, internal fictional service was only admissible if the defendant could take notice of the judicial document.

• R. Geimer: “Los Desastres de la Guerra und das Brüssel I-System” (ECJ - 15.02.2007 - C-292/05 - Lechouritou)
  The author reviews the ECJ’s judgment in “Lechouritou” which concerned an action for compensation brought against Germany by Greek successors of victims of war massacres and agrees with the Court that actions brought for compensation in respect of acts perpetrated by armed forces in the course of warfare do not constitute “civil matters” in terms of Brussels I. Thus, the author concludes that consequences of war and occupation can only be dealt with at the level of international law.

• C. Althammer: “Die Auslegung der Europäischen Streitgenossenzuständigkeit durch den EuGH – Quelle nationaler Fehlinterpretation?” (ECJ - 11.10.2007 - C-98/06 - Freeport) - The English abstract reads as follows:

In the case Freeport/Arnoldsson the European Court of Justice has not rewarded the anticipatory obedience that national courts have paid to the judgement Réunion Européenne. Two claims in one action directed against different defendants and based in one instance on contractual liability and in the other on liability in tort or delict can be regarded as connected (Art. 6 (1), Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001). In this respect the decision Freeport/Arnoldsson seems correct, although it is criticisable that the ECJ changes his course in such an oblique way. There is no favour done to legal certainty that way. An interpretation of the connection orientated towards the specific case which takes into account the national characteristics is advisable in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings. There is no risk of irreconcilable judgments if the proceeding against the anchor defendant is inadmissible. Moreover, the plaintiff must have a conclusive cause of action. Some chance of success seems to be necessary. The possibility of abuse requires an objective handling of the connection. In addition, subjective elements like malice are difficult to prove.

• A. Borrás: “Exclusive” and “Residual” Grounds of Jurisdiction on Divorce in the Brussels II bis Regulation (ECJ - 29.11.2007 - C-68/07 - Sundelind Lopez)
  In the reviewed case, the ECJ has held that Artt. 6 and 7 Brussels II bis have to be interpreted as meaning that where in divorce proceedings, a responsent is not habitually resident in a Member State and is not a national of a Member State, the courts of a Member State cannot base their jurisdiction on their national law if the courts of another Member State have jurisdiction under Art. 3 Brussels II bis. The author agrees with the ECJ regarding the final ruling, but is nevertheless critical with regard to the arguments brought forward by the Court and submits that the fact that there was no opinion by an Advocate General had a negative effect on the case. In this respect, the author regrets that this will happen more often in the future since the recent amendments of the Protocol on the Statute of the Court of Justice and of the rules of procedure of the Court provide “for an expedited or accelerated procedure and, for references for a preliminary ruling relating to the area of freedom, security and justice, an urgent procedure”.

• H. Roth: “Der Kostenfestsetzungsbeschluss für eine einstweilige Verfügung als Anwendungsfall des Europäischen Vollstreckungstitels für unbestrittene Forderungen” (OLG Stuttgart - 24.05.2007 - 8 W 184/07)
  The author approvingly reviews a decision of the Court of Appeal Stuttgart dealing with the question whether an order for costs for an interim injunction constitutes a “judgment” in terms of the Regulation creating a European Order for uncontested claims. The case concerned the question whether a certification of the order for costs as a European Enforcement Order had to be refused due to the fact that the underlying decision constituted an interim injunction which had not been given in adversarial proceedings. Thus, the case basically raised the question of the interdepence between the order for costs and the underlying decision. Here the court held that it was sufficient if the defendant was granted the right to be heard subsequently to the service of the decision.

• D. Henrich: “Wirksamkeit einer Auslandsadoption und Rechtsfolgen für die Staatsangehörigkeit” (OVG Hamburg - 19.10.2006 - 3 Bf 275/04)
  In the reviewed decision, the Higher Administrative Court Hamburg had to deal with the question of acquisition of German nationality by adoption and thus with the question which requirements an adoption has to comply with in order to lead to the acquisition of German nationality.

• M. Lamsa: “Allgemeinbegriffe in der Firma einer inländischen Zweigniederlassung einer EU-Auslandsgesellschaft” (LG Aachen - 10.04.2007 - 44 T 8/07)
  The author critically examines a decision of the Regional Court Aachen which has held - in view of the freedom of establishment - that the registration of a subsidiary of an English Limited could not be refused even if the trading name does not meet the requirements of German law.

• H. Sattler: “Staatsgeschenk und Urheberrechte” (BGH - 24.05.2007 - I ZR 42/04) - The English abstract reads as follows:

More than a decade after the fall of the Berlin Wall, the German Bundestag, in the course of a public ceremony in Berlin, donated to the United Nations three sections of the former Wall which had been painted by an Iranian artist without the landowner’s assent. The Bundesgerichtshof dismissed the artist’s claim for damages. The court found that the donation did not infringe the plaintiff’s rights of distribution (§ 17 German Copyright Act), because the parts of the wall were handed over only symbolically in Berlin whereas the actual transfer took place later in New York. The court further held that the painter had no right to be named (§ 13 German Copyright Act) during the Berlin ceremony, since his work was not exhibited at that presentation and had not been signed by the artist. It can be criticized that the court explicitly refused to deal with potential copyright infringements in New York solely due to the fact that the claimant, when stating the facts of his case, had not expressly referred to the applicable US law.

• C. F. Nordmeier discusses two Portuguese decisions dealing with the question of international jurisdiction of Portuguese courts with regard to actions against German sellers directed at the selling price. (”Internationale Zuständigkeit portugiesischer Gerichte für die Kaufpreisklage gegen deutsche Käufer: Die Bedeutung des INCOTERM für die Bestimmung des Lieferortes nach Art. 5 Nr. 1 lit. b EuGVVO”) (Tribunal da Relação de Porto, 26.4.2007, Agravo n° 1617/07-3^a Sec., und Supremo Tribunal de Justiça, 23.10.2007, Agravo 07A3119)

• W. Sieberichs addresses the qualification of the German civil partnership as a marriage which is provided in a note of the Belgium minister of justice (”Qualifikation der deutschen Lebenspartnerschaft als Ehe in Belgien”)

• C. Mindach reports on the development of arbitration in the Kyrgyz Republic (”Zur Entwicklung der Schiedsgerichtsbarkeit in der Kirgisischen Republik”)

• H. Krüger/F. Nomer-Ertan present the new Turkish rules on private international law (”Neues internationales Privatrecht in der Türkei”)

Further, this issue contains the following materials:

• The Turkish Statute No. 5718 of 27 November 2007 on private international law and the international law of civil procedure (”Das türkische Gesetz Nr. 5718 vom 27.11.2007 über das internationale Privat- und Zivilverfahrensrecht”)

• Statute of the Kyrgyz Republic on the arbitral tribunals of the Kyrgyz Republic of 30 July 2002, Nr. 135 (”Gesetz der Kirgisischen Republik über die Schiedsgerichte in der Kirgisischen Republik – Bischkek, 30.7.2002, Nr. 135″)

• Première Commission – Résolution – La substitution et l’équivalence en droit international privé – Institut de Droit International, Session de Santiago 2007 – 27 octobre 2007

As well as the following information:

• E. Jayme on the 73rd Session of the Institute of International Law in Santiago, Chile (”Substitution und Äquivalenz im Internationalen Privatrecht – 73. Tagung des Institut de Droit International in Santiago de Chile”)

• S. Kratzer on the annual conference of the German-Italian Lawyers’ Association (”Das neue italienische Verbrauchergesetzbuch – Kodifikation oder Kompilation und Einführung des Familienvertrages (“patto di famiglia“) im italienischen Unternehmenserbrecht – Jahrestagung der Deutsch-italienischen Juristenvereinigung in Augsburg”)

Today, the ECJ delivered its judgment in case C-14/07 (Weiss und Partner).

The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) had referred the following questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (’the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that an addressee does not have the right to refuse to accept a document pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Regulation if only the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

Must Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the addressee ‘understands’ the language of a Member State of transmission within the meaning of that regulation because, in the exercise of his business activity, he agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission?

If the answer to the second question is in the negative:

Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the addressee may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of such annexes to a document, which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, if the addressee concludes a contract in the exercise of his business activity in which he agrees that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes transmitted concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language?

The Court now held in its judgment:

1. Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document instituting the proceedings which is to be served does not have the right to refuse to accept that document, provided that it enables the addressee to assert his rights in legal proceedings in the Member State of transmission, where annexes are attached to that document consisting of documentary evidence which is not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, but which has a purely evidential function and is not necessary for understanding the subject‑matter of the claim and the cause of action.

It is for the national court to determine whether the content of the document instituting the proceedings is sufficient to enable the defendant to assert his rights or whether it is necessary for the party instituting the proceedings to remedy the fact that a necessary annex has not been translated.

2. Article 8(1)(b) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the fact that the addressee of a document served has agreed in a contract concluded with the applicant in the course of his business that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission does not give rise to a presumption of knowledge of that language, but is evidence which the court may take into account in determining whether that addressee understands the language of the Member State of transmission.

3. Article 8(1) of Regulation No 1348/2000 is to be interpreted as meaning that the addressee of a document served may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of annexes to the document which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands where the addressee concluded a contract in the course of his business in which he agreed that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language.

See for the full judgment the website of the ECJ and with regard to the background of the case our previous post on the opinion of Advocate General Trstenjak which can be found here.

Today, Advocate General Sharpston has delivered her opinion in case C-353/06 (Grunkin and Paul).

The background of the case is as follows: The case concerns a child who was born in Denmark having, as well as his parents, only German nationality. The child was registered in Denmark – in accordance with Danish law – under the compound surname Grunkin-Paul combining the name of his father (Grunkin) and the name of his mother (Paul), who did not use a common married name. After moving to Germany, German authorities refused to recognise the surname of the child as it had been determined in Denmark, since according to German private international law (Art.10 EGBGB) the name of a person is subject to the law of his/her nationality, i.e. in this case German law and according to German law (§ 1617 BGB), parents who do not share a married name shall choose either the father’s or the mother’s surname to be the child’s surname.

The Local Court (Amtsgericht) Niebüll which was called to designate the parent having the right to choose the child’s surname, sought a preliminary ruling of the ECJ on the compatibility of Art.10 EGBGB with Articles 12 and 18 EC-Treaty. However, the ECJ held that it had no jurisdiction to answer the question referred since the referring court acted in an administrative rather than in a judicial capacity (judgment of 27 April 2006, C-96/04). In the following, the parents applied again - without success - to have their son registered with the surname Grunkin-Paul. The parents’ challenge to this refusal was heard, by virtue of German procedural law, by the Amtsgericht Flensburg. The Amtsgericht Flensburg held that it was precluded from instructing the registrar to register the applicants’ son under this name by German law. However, since the court had doubts as to whether it amounts to a violation of Articles 12 and 18 EC-Treaty to ask a citizen of the European Union to use different names in different Member States, the court referred with decision of 16th August 2006 (69 III 11/06) the following questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

In light of the prohibition on discrimination set out in Article 12 of the EC Treaty and having regard to the right to the freedom of movement for every citizen of the Union laid down by Article 18 of the EC Treaty, is the provision on the conflict of laws contained in Article 10 of the EGBGB valid, in so far as it provides that the right to bear a name is governed by nationality alone?

Advocate Generel Sharpston now held in her opinion that the Court should answer the question raised by the Amtsgericht Flensburg as follows:

– a choice of law rule under which a person’s name is to be determined in accordance with the law of his nationality is not in itself incompatible with Articles 12, 17 or 18 EC;

– however, any such rule must be applied in such a way as to respect the right of each citizen of the Union to move and reside freely in the territory of the Member States;

– that right is not respected if such a citizen has been registered under one name in accordance with the applicable law of his place of birth, before it becomes necessary to register his name elsewhere, and is subsequently required to register a different name in another Member State;

– consequently, the authorities of a Member State may not, when registering the name of a citizen of the Union, automatically refuse to recognise a name under which he has already been lawfully registered in accordance with the rules of another Member State, unless recognition would conflict with overriding reasons of public interest which admit of no exception.

See for the full opinion the website of the ECJ. See further on this case also our previous posts on the judgment of the Court of 27 April 2006 which can be found here as well as on the referring decision of the Amtsgericht Flensburg which can be found here.

Anatol Dutta (Hamburg) has written an article on the German reference for a preliminary ruling in Seagon v. Deko Marty Belgium NV (Case C-339/07): Jurisdiction for insolvency-related proceedings caught between European legislation, Lloyd’s Maritime and Commercial Law Quarterly (LMCLQ) 2008, p. 88-96.

Here is the abstract:

The stock of European legislation in the area of private international law is growing steadily. The pointillist technique employed by the European legislator, however, necessarily entails friction between the different legislative acts. One illustrative example, which shall be examined in this article, concerns jurisdiction for insolvency-related proceedings. Such individual proceedings which derive directly from the bankruptcy and are closely connected to collective insolvency proceedings could be governed by different European regulations or even by national law.

See with regard to this reference also our previous post which can be found here.

The University of Heidelberg Law School awards in cooperation with the Max-Planck-Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law Doctoral Research Positions (starting June 2008, duration: up to 3 years) for studies leading to a Doctorate in Law (Dr. jur.) with the following research objective:

How can the success of international dispute resolution be explained? How must successful dispute resolution be organized? The topic includes private and public international law (arbitration, mediation) as well as international criminal law.

For more information on the research program, the coordinators, the stipends as well as requirements and the application procedure see the website of the Institute for Private International Law, University of Heidelberg which can be found (in English) here.

Recently, the March issue of “Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts” (IPRax) was released.

It contains the following articles/case notes (including the reviewed decisions):

• R. Wagner/B. Timm on the German ministerial draft bill on the law applicable to companies, juristic persons and associations (”Der Referentenentwurf eines Gesetzes zum Internationalen Privatrecht der Gesellschaften, Vereine und juristischen Personen”). The English abstract reads as follows:

Companies that operate across borders need clarity with regard to which respective national law applies to them. There are some decisions of the European Court of Justice on the right of settlement according to the Treaty which touch this matter. However, no uniform picture has yet emerged in the European Union. A uniform European regulation would be desirable, but the EU-Commission has not taken up this question yet. In order to promote legal certainty, the German Federal Ministry of Justice has therefore presented a ministerial draft bill on the law applicable to companies, juristic persons and associations. The bill might later on serve as the basis for work on a European regulation. As a general rule, the ministerial draft bill provides for the “law of establishment”, i.e. the law at the place of registration, as the law applicable to companies, legal persons and associations. For non-registered companies, legal persons and associations, the applicable law is to be that under which they are organised. Furthermore, the proposed bill clarifies the scope of “the law of establishment” and contains regulations regarding the law applicable to cross-border reorganisations, the change of applicable law and other aspects of cross-border cases.

• J. Fingerhuth/J. Rumpf on the consequences of the German MoMiG for cross-border relocations of German entities (”MoMiG und die grenzüberschreitende Sitzverlegung - Die Sitztheorie ein (lebendes) Fossil?”). Here is the English abstract:

The German government rendered a top-to-bottom reform of the German Law on Limited Liability Companies (‘GmbHG’) with the governmental draft of the MoMiG dated 23 May 2007. The reform also covers the German law on Stock Corporations (‘AktG’) and general corporate law matters. It is intended by the reform to abandon the required concurrence of statutory seat and seat of the head office of a company and, therefore, to allow German GmbHs and AGs to move their head office to another country (cross-border relocation). Both GmbH and AG will have the same opportunities as entities from countries, where the incorporation theory is applicable. The article discusses the consequences of the MoMiG for cross-border relocations of German entities. In particular, by using the example of the GmbH & Co KG, the authors illustrate problems arising from the intentions of the MoMiG and the ‘real seat’ theory as it is currently applied in Germany. Furthermore, the authors discuss the need for German entities to completely apply the incorporation theory in Germany. The article comes to the conclusion that the ‘real seat’ theory will be entirely abandoned by the MoMiG becoming effective. The authors finally encourage the legislator to express this consequence literally within the reasoning of the MoMiG.

• A.-K. Bitter on the interpretative connection between the Brussels I Regulation and the (future) Rome I Regulation (”Auslegungszusammenhang zwischen der Brüssel I-Verordnung und der künftigen Rom I-Verordnung”)

• A. Kampf on the implications of the European directive on services on PIL (”EU-Dienstleistungsrichtlinie und Kollisionsrecht”). The abstract reads:

On 28 December 2006, after a period of almost three years of debate and political manoeuvring, the European directive on services (2006/123/EC) came into force. It will have to be implemented by the Member States by 28 December 2009 at the latest. The directive applies to a wide range of service activities based upon the case law of the European Court of Justice relating to the freedom of establishment and the free movement of services. In order to make it easier for businesses to set up in other Member States or to provide services across-border on a temporary basis, each Member State shall set up Points of Single Contact. These shall ensure that providers have access to all necessary information and can complete the formalities necessary for doing business in other Member States. Moreover regulatory and authorization bodies across the EU are meant to cooperate more effectively. The directive is expected to engender consumer confidence in cross-border services through access to information. Restrictive legislation and practices shall be abolished after having been screened. A rather neglected aspect in public discussion are the directive’s implications on private international law. Nevertheless they should be examined for both practical and systematic reasons.

• A. Fuchs on the question of international jurisdiction for direct actions against the insurer in the courts of the Member State where the injured party is domiciled (”Internationale Zuständigkeit für Direktklagen”), (ECJ, 13.12.2007, C-463/06 (FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v. Jack Odenbreit); Higher Regional Court Karlsruhe, 7.9.2007 - 14 W 31/07; Local Court Bremen, 6.2.2007 - 4 C 251/06). This is the English abstract:

The injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts of the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State. This follows, according to the judgment of the ECJ, from the reference in Article 11 (2) of the Brussels I Regulation to Article 9 (1) (b). The previous judgment of the first instance court in Bremen was based on the same argument. However, according to a judgment of the court of appeal in Karlsruhe, courts at the place of domicile of the injured party lack international jurisdiction under the Lugano Convention. Fuchs argues that neither the wording nor the historic interpretation support the assumption of jurisdiction of the courts in the state where the injured party is domiciled. This situation has not been altered in the course of the transfer of the Brussels Convention into a regulation. The main argument in favour of admitting direct claims before the courts of the injured party’s domicile can be drawn from the systematic interpretation. However, this additional place of jurisdiction will have undesirable consequences such as forum shopping and race to the court. In case of Article 11 (3), it will lead to unforeseeable results for the policyholder or the insured. Furthermore, it may have a negative economic impact for drivers in relatively poor Member States. The author criticizes the European legislator for not having discussed these issues openly in the context of the Brussels I Regulation.

• A. Staudinger on a decision of the German Federal Supreme Court on the scope of the head of jurisdiction of Art. 15 (2) Brussels I Regulation (”Reichweite des Verbrauchergerichtsstandes nach Art. 15 Abs. 2 EuGVVO”), (Federal Supreme Court, 12.6.2007 - XI ZR 290/06)

• E. Eichenhofer on a decision of the Higher Labour Court Frankfurt (Main) dealing with the question of international jurisdiction regarding contribution claims of German social security benefits offices against employers having their seat in another EU Member State (”Internationale Zuständigkeit für Beitragsforderungen deutscher tariflicher Sozialkassen gegen Arbeitgeber mit Sitz in anderen EU-Staaten”), (Higher Labour Court Frankfurt (Main), 12.2.2007 - 16 Sa 1366/06)

• J. von Hein on the concentration of jurisdiction regarding appeals in cross-border cases according to § 119 (1) No. 1 lit. b GVG (”Die Zuständigkeitskonzentration für die Berufung in Auslandssachen nach § 119 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 lit. b GVG - ein gescheitertes Experiment?”), (Federal Supreme Court, 19.6.2007 - VI ZB 3/07 and 27.6.2007 - XII ZB 114/06)

• D. Henrich on the question of renvoi in PIL of names occurring due to a different qualification by foreign law (”Rückverweisung aufgrund abweichender Qualifikation im internationalen Namensrecht”), (Federal Supreme Court, 20.6.2007 - XII ZB 17/04)

• B. König on the requirements of due information as well as the scope of application of the Regulation creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims (”EuVTVO: Belehrungserfordernisse und Anwendungsbereich”), (Regional Court Wels, 5.6.2006 - 1 Cg 159/06m, Higher Regional Court Linz, 4.7.2007 - 1 R 124/07x)

• A. Laptew/S. Kopylov on the requirement of reciprocity with regard to the enforcement of foreign judgments between the Russian Federation and Germany (Yukos Oil Company) (”Zum Erfordernis der Gegenseitgkeit bei der Vollstreckung ausländischer Urteile zwischen der Russischen Föderation und der Bundesrepublick Deutschland (Fall Yukos Oil Company)”), (Federal Commercial District Court Moscow, 2.3.2006 - KG-A40/698-06P)

• H. Krüger on the recognition and enforcement of foreign titels in Cameroon (”Zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung ausländischer Titel in Kamerun”)

• A. Jahn on PIL questions in the context of withdrawals of wills due to marriage in anglo-american legal systems (”Kollisionsrechtliche Fragen des Widerrufs eines Testamentes durch Heirat in anglo-amerikanischen Rechtsordnungen”)

• C. Jessel-Holst on the Statute of Private International Law of the Republic of Macedonia (”Zum Gesetzbuch über internationales Privatrecht der Republik Mazedonien”)

Further, this issue contains the following materials:

• Statute of Private International Law of the Republic of Macedonia of 4 July 2007 (”Gesetz über internationales Privatrecht - Gesetz der Republik Mazedonien vom 4.7.2007″)

• Luxembourg Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Railway Rolling Stock - signed in Luxembourg on 23 February 2007 (”Protokoll von Luxemburg zum Übereinkommen über internationale Sicherungsrechte an beweglicher Ausrüstung betreffend Besonderheiten des rollenden Eisenbahnmaterials - unterzeichnet in Luxemburg am 23.2.2007″)

As well as the following information:

• H.-G. Bollweg/K. Kreuzer on the Luxembourg Protocol to the Convention on International Interests in Mobile Equipment on Matters Specific to Railway Rolling Stock (”Das Luxemburger Eisenbahnprotokoll – „Protokoll zum Übereinkommen über internationale Sicherungsrechte an beweglicher Ausrüstung betreffend Besonderheiten des rollenden Eisenbahnmaterials“ vom 23. 2. 2007″)

• E. Jayme on the (critical) debate in France about the Community’s competence in PIL which was made public by French PIL professors by means of open letters on this issue (”Frankreich: Professorenstreit zum Europäischen IPR – einige Betrachtungen”)

• E. Jayme on the convention of the Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institutes in Vienna (”Kodifikation des IPR, des grenzüberschreitenden Zivilrechts und Zivilverfahrensrechts in der Europäischen Union – Tagung der Ludwig-Boltzmann-Institute in Wien”)

• C. Gross: report on the 40th UNCITRAL session (”Bericht über die 40. Sitzung der Kommission der Vereinten Nationen zum internationalen Handelsrecht (UNCITRAL)”)

For recent information on PIL see also the website of the Institute for Private International Law, Cologne.

(Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Heinz-Peter Mansel, editor of the journal (University of Cologne) for providing the English abstracts.)

Stefan Voigt (Marburg) has written an interesting article titled “Are International Merchants Stupid? Their Choice of Law Sheds Doubt on the Legal Origin Theory” which has been published originally in the Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, March 2008, Vol. 5, Issue 1 and has been posted on SSRN.

The abstract reads as follows:

In economics, there is currently an important discussion on the role of legal origins or legal families. Some economists claim that legal origins play a crucial role even today. Usually, they distinguish between Common Law, French, Scandinavian and German legal origin. When these legal origins are compared, countries belonging to the Common Law tradition regularly come out best (with regard to many different dimensions) and countries belonging to the French legal origin worst.

In international transactions, contracting parties can choose the substantive law according to which they want to structure their transactions. In this paper, this choice is interpreted as revealed preference for a specific legal regime. It is argued that the superiority-of-common-law view can be translated into the hypothesis that sophisticated and utility-maximizing actors would rationally choose a substantive law based on the Common Law tradition such as English or US American law. Although exact statistics are not readily available, the evidence from cases that end up with international arbitration courts (such as the International Court of Arbitration run by the International Chamber of Commerce in Paris) demonstrates that this is not the case. This evidence sheds, hence, some doubt on the superiority-of-the-common-law view.

The article can be downloaded from SSRN as well as from Blackwell Synergy (with subscription).

(Many thanks to Prof. Dr. Jan von Hein (Trier) for the tip-off!)

Today, the ECJ delivered its judgment in case C-463/06 (FBTO Schadeverzekeringen N.V. v. Jack Odenbreit).

The German Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof) had referred the following question to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

Is the reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation to be understood as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer in the courts for the place in a Member State where the injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State?

The Court held as follows:

The reference in Article 11(2) of Council Regulation (EC) No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to Article 9(1)(b) of that regulation is to be interpreted as meaning that the injured party may bring an action directly against the insurer before the courts for the place in a Member State where that injured party is domiciled, provided that such a direct action is permitted and the insurer is domiciled in a Member State.

See for the full judgment the website of the ECJ and for the background of the case our previous posts which can be found here and here.

Thomas Thiede and Markus Kellner (both Vienna) have written an article on Forum Shopping between Rome II and the Hague Convention on the Law applicable to Traffic Accidents in the legal journal Versicherungsrecht (VersR 2007, 1624 et seq.): “‘Forum shopping’ zwischen dem Haager Übereinkommen über das auf Verkehrsunfälle anzuwendende Recht und der Rom-II-Verordnung”.

The authors argue that Article 28 (1) Rome II, which provides as a general rule that the Regulation shall not prejudice the application of international conventions to which one or more Member States are parties and which lay down conflict-of-law rules relating to non-contractual obligations, leads to the precedence of the Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents since the exception clause of Article 28 (2) Rome II is – due to the fact that also Non-Member States are parties to the Hague Convention – not applicable.

It is submitted that the subsidiarity of the Rome II Regulation on the one side and the fact that the Hague Convention has not been ratified by some Member States on the other side entails the possibility of forum shopping. Thus, the authors argue, it would have been preferable to give priority to the Rome II Regulation over all Hague Conventions in order to ascertain – at least for intra-EU cases – the applicability of only one law.

Yesterday, Advocate General Trstenjak delivered her opinion in case C-14/07 (Weiss und Partner).

The background of the case was as follows: The Chamber of Industry and Commerce Berlin (Industrie- und Handelskammer Berlin) sued Nicholas Grimshaw & Partners Ltd. for damages under a architect contract. The parties had agreed in this contract that correspondence was to be conducted in German. The defendant was served with a statement of claim as well as annexes which were drafted in German. After Grimshaw had refused acceptance of the statement of claim and the annexes, Grimshaw was served with an English translation of the statement of claim and annexes written in German without an English translation. Subsequently, Grimshaw referred to Art. 8 (1) Service Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000) and refused to accept the documents due to the fact that the annexes had not been translated into English. After the appeal of Grimshaw against an interim judgment of the Regional Court (Landgericht) Berlin declaring the claim having been served properly was refused by the Court of Appeal (Kammergericht) Berlin, the third party (Weiss and Partner GbR) appealed to the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof).

Since the Bundesgerichtshof had doubts on the interpretation of Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000, it referred the following questions to the ECJ for a preliminary ruling:

Must Article 8(1) of Council Regulation (EC) No 1348/2000 of 29 May 2000 on the service in the Member States of judicial and extrajudicial documents in civil or commercial matters (’the Regulation’) be interpreted as meaning that an addressee does not have the right to refuse to accept a document pursuant to Article 8(1) of the Regulation if only the annexes to a document to be served are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands?

If the answer to the first question is in the negative:

Must Article 8(1)(b) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the addressee ‘understands’ the language of a Member State of transmission within the meaning of that regulation because, in the exercise of his business activity, he agreed in a contract with the applicant that correspondence was to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission?

If the answer to the second question is in the negative:

Must Article 8(1) of the Regulation be interpreted as meaning that the addressee may not in any event rely on that provision in order to refuse acceptance of such annexes to a document, which are not in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands, if the addressee concludes a contract in the exercise of his business activity in which he agrees that correspondence is to be conducted in the language of the Member State of transmission and the annexes transmitted concern that correspondence and are written in the agreed language?

Advocate General Trstenjak recommended in her opinion that the ECJ should decide in the following way:

With regard to the first question, the Advocate General suggests that Art. 8 (1) Service Regulation should be interpreted as providing in case of the service of a document including annexes a right of the addressee to refuse acceptance pursuant to Art. 8 (1) Service Regulation also in cases where only the annexes to the document to be served have not been written in the language of the Member State addressed or in a language of the Member State of transmission which the addressee understands.

In respect of the second question, the Advocate General recommends that Art. 8 (1) b) Service Regulation should be construed in this sense that there exists a refutable presumption that the addressee of a document understands the language of a Member State of transmission in terms of this Regulation if he agrees contractually in the exercise of his business activity that correspondence between the contracting parties on the one side and with authorities and public institutions of the Member State of transmission on the other side is conducted in the language of this Member State of transmission. However, since this constitutes only a refutable presumption, the addressee can refute this presumption under the rules of evidence of the Member State where the lawsuit is conducted.

In regard to the third question, the Advocate General submits that Art. 8 (1) Service Regulation should be interpreted as not granting a right to the addressee to refuse the acceptance of annexes to a statement of claim which are not drafted in the language of the Member State addressed, but in the language which has been agreed upon contractually between the parties in the exercise of their business activity for correspondence with authorities and public institutions of the Member State of transmission, if he concludes a contract in excercise of his business activity and agrees that correspondence with authorities and public institutions of the Member State of transmission is conducted in the language of this State and if the transmitted annexes concern this correspondence and are drafted in the agreed language.

(Approximate translation from the German version of the opinion available at the ECJ website.)

See for the full opinion (in German, French, Spanish, Estonian, Dutch, Slovene, Finnish and Swedish) and the reference the website of the ECJ. The referring decision can be found (in German) at the website of the Bundesgerichtshof.

German professor Jurgen Basedow and German scholar Simon Schwarz have reported in English on the new site of the Section of Private International Law of the Society of Comparative Legislation on a statutory intervention amending the German choice of law rule with regard to name.

The new provision (art. 47 of the Introductory Law to the German Civil Code - EGBGB) and the report can be found here.

The report of Basedow and Schwarz is here.

Simon Schwarz (Hamburg) has published a comprehensive article on “The Law Applicable to Voluntary Agency in a Comparative Perspective” (“Das Internationale Stellvertretungsrecht im Spiegel nationaler und supranationaler Kodifikationen”) in the latest issue of the “Rabels Zeitschrift für ausländisches und internationales Privatrecht” (RabelsZ 71 (2007) pp. 729-801).

Here is the English summary:

Questions relating to an agent’s authority represent a basic problem of contract law and are of considerable practical importance in international market transactions. The article analyses which law should govern the powers of an agent to bind his principal vis-à-vis a third party. To this end, the article examines, systemises, and evaluates the pertinent solutions adopted in more than twenty jurisdictions as well as in the European Commission’s Proposal for a Rome I-Regulation of December 2005. The findings may be summarised as follows:

1. Due to the characteristic triangular relationship of the agency situation there is a clear need for a separate conflicts rule dealing with the agent’s authority.

2. The agent’s place of business and the place where the agent acted represent the most commonly accepted and best founded connecting factors in this respect while the place of the habitual residence of the agent should not be taken into account. As to the question which law should prevail if the agent actually does not act in the country of his business establishment, the solutions differ considerably among the various legal systems. Basically, applying the law of the place of business of a professional agent constitutes a sound and sensible solution which particularly meets the needs of international trade. Therefore, this connecting factor should generally take precedence over the lex loci actus provided that the agent’s place of business was actually foreseeable to the third party.

3. Most of the legal systems recognise party autonomy with regard to the law governing the agent’s authority, which appears to be a particularly reasonable concept. As to its implementation, however, there are some variations in detail. Both as a matter of principle and of business practice the most appropriate approach seems to be to allow the principal to designate the law applicable to the agent’s powers unilaterally, i.e., without the consent of the agent or the third party, provided that this designation is in writing and is foreseeable to the third party. Since the ambit of the law chosen by the principal also extends the possible liability of the agent as falsus procurator the choice must be foreseeable to the agent as well.

4. The scope of the conflict rule on agency should be designed comprehensively rather than restrictively in order to avoid difficult problems of characterisation. Hence, the rule should not merely adjudicate the existence and the extend of the agent’s actual or apparent authority but should encompass the legal consequences of the exercise of the agent’s powers with regard the principal/third party relation as well as the agent/third party relation, including the liability of the falsus procurator and the effects of an undisclosed agency.

Martin Illmer (Hamburg) and Ingrid Naumann (Berlin, currently New York) have published a very interesting analysis of the compatibility of anti-suit injunctions in aid of arbitration agreements with the Brussels Regulation in International Arbitration Law Review (Int. A.L.R. 2007, 10(5), 147-159): Yet another blow - anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements within the European Union.

An abstract has been kindly provided by the authors:

Following the ECJ’s judgment in Turner the issue of the compatibility of anti-suit injunctions with the regime of the Brussels Regulation has again attracted much attention due to the reference by the House of Lords to the ECJ in the West Tankers case. By virtue of the eagerly awaited judgment of the ECJ anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements are at risk to fall within the European Union. Illmer and Naumann provide a thorough and detailed analysis of whether anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements are compatible with the Brussels Regulation (Regulation 44/2001) and general principles of EU law. Weighing and assessing the arguments put forward in both directions they reach the compelling conclusion that anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements are incompatible not only with the Brussels Regulation but with general principles of European law. This conclusion based on legal reasoning cannot be overcome by reference to an alleged practical reality of arbitration which the authors unveil as disguised protectionism for the arbitral seat London.

In the first part of their article, Illmer and Naumann provide a detailed analysis of the scope of the arbitration exception of Art. 1(2)(d) of Regulation 44/2001 with regard to anti-suit injunctions. This comprises of an analysis of the ECJ’s former judgments in Marc Rich and van Uden, the English courts’ understanding and interpretation of Art. 1(2)(d) which the authors criticise as a cherry picking exercise and finally a thorough construction of the arbitration exception based on the canon of interpretation tools generally applied by the ECJ. They conclude that the arbitration exception does not cover anti-suit injunctions in support of arbitration agreements. Caught by the the regime of the Brussels Regulation they are incompatible with it as follows inevitably from the ECJ’s judgment in Turner.

In the second part of the article, the authors continue their analysis under the presumption that the anti-suit proceedings are covered by the arbitration exception and thus do not fall under the Brussels Regulation. Whereas one may take the view that principles underlying the Regulation, in particular the notion of mutual trust, cannot be applied to anti-suit proceedings falling outside the scope of the Regulation, one cannot bypass the general principle of effet utile: Even proceedings in national state courts that do not fall under the Brussels Regulation by virtue of the arbitration exception must not impair proceedings that come within the scope of the Brussels Regulation (i.e. the proceedings which are intended to be restrained by the anti-suit injunction) and thus distort the effective functioning of European law.

In a third, complementary part the authors rebut the arguments put forward by the House of Lords in the West Tankers reference concerning the so-called practical reality of arbitration. They show that the truth behind this argument is a protection of London as an arbitral seat vis-à-vis its European competitors in the fierce competition for arbitration amongst arbitral seats. Furthermore, the authors hint at alternatives to anti-suit injunctions in protecting the undeniable interest of the parties to an arbitration agreement in avoiding a breach or circumvention of it.

The latest issue of the German legal journal Praxis des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrecht (IPRax) has been published.

Here is the contents:

• Erik Jayme and Christian Kohler: European Private International Law 2007 (Europäisches Kollisionsrecht 2007: Windstille im Erntefeld der Integration)
• Peter Arnt Nielsen: Brussels I and Denmark
• Robert Freitag: Remedies of the debtor against the European order for payment according to the Regulation creating a European order for payment procedure (Rechtsschutz des Schuldners gegen den Europäischen Zahlungsbefehl nach der EuMahnVO)
• Christoph Althammer: PIL issues in case of the application of foreign law by local courts according to § 119 (1) No. 1c Judicature Act (Kollisionsrechtliche Fragestellungen bei der Anwendung ausländischen Rechts durch die Amtsgerichte gemäß § 119 Abs. 1 Nr. 1c GVG)
• Christoph Thole: International jurisdiction of German courts regarding claims against foreign shell companies (Die internationale Zuständigkeit deutscher Gerichte bei Klagen gegen Scheinauslandsgesellschaften)
• Timo Rosenkranz: Limits of the copyright infringement liability of the foreign operator of an online marketplace (Grenzen der urheberrechtlichen Störerhaftung des ausländischen Betreibers einer Online-Handelsplattform)
• Nina Adelmann: The exclusion of liability regarding cross-border employment relationships between the poles of choice of law rules in labour law and the rules concerning the posting of workers (Das Haftungsprivileg bei grenzüberschreitenden Arbeitsverhältnissen im Spannungsfeld zwischen Arbeitskollisions- und Arbeitnehmerentsenderecht - Ein Problemaufriss dargestellt am Beispiel des niederländischen Wet Arbeidsvoorwaarden Grensoverschrijdende Arbeid)
• Hilmar Krüger: Recognition and enforcement of German judgments in the Sultanate of Oman (Zur Anerkennung und Vollstreckung deutscher Urteile im Sultanat Oman)
• Dietrich Nelle: New choice of law rules in Algeria (Neues Kollisionsrecht in Algerien)
• Yuko Nishitani: PIL reform in Japan (Die Reform des internationalen Privatrechts in Japan)

Stefan Leible and Erik Roeder (both Bayreuth) have published an article on abusive choice of court clauses in European law in the German legal journal Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft (RIW 2007, 481-487): Missbrauchskontrolle von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen im Europäischen Zivilprozessrecht

An abstract has been kindly provided by the authors:

In their article, Leible and Roeder analyze whether and to what extent the European Procedural Law allows to review unfair forum selection agreements. In particular, the authors try to answer the question whether an agreement under Art. 23 of the Brussels I Regulation (Council Regulation 44/2001) may be declared void by a national court because in concluding the agreement one party has abused its dominant economic position.

In the first part of the article, Leible and Roeder refute the arguments put forward to reject any review of jurisdiction agreements. As the authors show, the competence of the ECJ to interpret the Brussels Regulation does not foreclose such a review because the ECJ has not decided on the issue so far. A review of choice of forum-clauses would neither put legal certainty at risk, nor would it discriminate against courts of other Member States.

In the second part of the article, Leible and Roeder argue for a review of forum selection clauses within the scope of Art. 23 of the Brussels I Regulation. An agreement on jurisdiction that was obtained by abuse of economic predominance does not truly reflect the autonomous will of the parties. The possibility of a review by the courts of the Member States allows to settle individual cases in accordance with equity. In order to ensure legal certainty, the notion of “abuse of economic predominance” must be defined autonomously by the ECJ.

The Tulane Law Review and the Duke Center for International and Comparative Law organise a symposium entitled:

The European Choice-of-Law Revolution — A Chance for the United States?

Confirmed participants for this symposium include:

• Bernard Audit (Paris I), Richard Fentiman (Cambridge), and Ralf Michaels (Duke) discussing methods
• Stephanie Francq (Louvain-la-Neuve), Mathias Reimann (Michigan), and Larry Ribstein (Illinois) discussing federal unification and the dichotomy of internal and external conflicts
• Horatia Muir-Watt (Paris I) and Jurgen Basedow (Max Planck) discussing interstate market regulation
• Jens Dammann (Texas) and Onnig Dombalagian (Tulane) discussing conflicts in corporate law
• Jan von Hein (Max Planck) and Symeon Symeonides (Willamette) discussing conflicts in tort law
• Dennis Solomon (Tubingen), Bill Richman (Toledo), and Patrick Borchers (Creighton) discussing conflicts in contract law

The symposium will take place on 9 February 2008 in Durham, NC

More information can be found at the website of the Tulane Law Review.

(Thanks to Prof. Jan von Hein (Trier) for the tip-off.)

The national reports which have been compiled for the Study on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States and for the Study on Residual Jurisdiction are now available at the website of the European Commission.

The general reports of both studies as well as the national reports can be found here.

Further, the reports of the Study on the Application of Regulation Brussels I in the Member States (Study JLS/C4/2005/03) can also be found at the website of the Institute for Private International Law, Heidelberg.

See regarding the Study on the Application of Regulation Brussels I our previous posts which can be found here and here.

On 11 July 2007, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II) has been adopted.

Stefan Leible and Matthias Lehmann (both Bayreuth) have now written an article on Rome II which has been published in the German legal journal „Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft“ (RIW 2007, 721 et seq.):

“Die neue EG-Verordnung über das auf außervertragliche Schuldverhältnisse anzuwendende Recht (“Rom II”)”

In their article, Leible and Lehmann give an overview of the scope of application and functioning of the new Regulation and comment on the most important rules by means of several examples.

In principle, the authors welcome Rome II for establishing a uniform measure on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations and creating more legal certainty. Nevertheless, it is criticised that non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality, including defamation are excluded from the scope of application according to Art. 1 (2) (g) Rome II. However, according to Art. 30 (2) Rome II, the Commission shall submit a study on the situation in the field of the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of privacy and rights relating to personality no later than 31 December 2008. Thus, there is still an option that Community rules on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations arising out of violations of rights relating to personality and in particular press offences will be adopted in the future.

See also our previous posts on the adoption of Rome II and on the publication in the Official Journal.

With order of 14 June 2007 the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) decided not to admit constitutional complaints concerning the service of statements of claim in American class actions pursuant to the Hague Service Convention.

The facts of the case are as follows:

Against the complainant, an automobile manufacturer with its registered office in Germany, lawsuits were brought on the basis of the allegation that they had made agreements in violation of competition law preventing the import of motor vehicles from Canada to the US in order to keep the price level in the US market high. Based on the alleged violations of competition law, several class-action lawsuits were filed in the US. In three of these actions, the plaintiffs requested the President of the competent German court as the central authority pursuant to Art. 2 Hague Service Convention to serve the statements of claim on the complainant according to Art. 5 Hague Service Convention.

After the orders for service had been made, the complainant asserted that the service of the statements of claim should not have been ordered because the objectives of the class actions violated the essential principles of a free state governed by the rule of law. Consequently, service should have been refused according to Art.13 (1) Hague Service Convention (para. 5). After legal remedies had failed before the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) and the Federal Supreme Court (Bundesgerichtshof), the complainant filed constitutional complaints (that were consolidated for joint adjudication) alleging a violation of Art. 2 (1) Basic Law (Grundgesetz) in conjunction with the rule of law based on the assertion that the subject-matter of the domestic service are statements of claims in actions which were brought before the American courts without any basis and only for non-legal purposes. Thus, the service of such statements of claim should be rejected on the basis of Art. 13 Hague Service Convention for constitutional reasons. Further, the complainant asserts a violation of Art. 14 Basic Law (guarantee of property) since the service of a statement of claim was an encroachment on the asset base of the company due to the burden of costs associated with proceedings. In addition, a violation of Art. 12 (1) Basic Law (occupational freedom) is alleged since also the complainant’s gainful activity were affected. Finally, the complainant argues that also its right to a hearing in court (Art. 103 (1) Basic Law) had been violated

The Federal Constitutional Court did not admit the constitutional claims for decision and held that

[t]he decisions of German state bodies which effectuate domestic service of foreign statements of claim may violate Article 2.1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the rule of law principle if the objective pursued by the statement of claims violates essential principles of a free state governed by the rule of law. However, the class actions in this case do not satisfy this requirement. (para.13)

The Court went on by stating that service may only be refused on the basis of Art. 13 Hague Service Convention under narrow circumstances.

According to the case-law of the Federal Constitutional Court, a limit might be reached where the objective pursued by the action “obviously violates essential principles of a free state governed by the rule of law” (BVerfGE 91, 335 (343); 108, 238 (247)). It is true that the First Senate of the Federal Constitutional Court has decided that the mere possibility of imposing punitive damages does not amount to a violation of essential rule of law principles (BVerfGE 91, 335 (343-344)). If, however, damages claims appear from the outset to violate the abuse of law principle, the possibility that the service of a statement of claim may be incompatible with the essential principles of a free state governed by the rule of law is no longer excluded. In such a case, it is possible that a German state body could through its application and interpretation of the reservation clause in Article 13.1 of the Hague Service Convention fundamentally misjudge and disproportionately limit the rights of a complainant. The standard which applies in this case is Article 2.1 of the Basic Law in conjunction with the rule of law. However, the Federal Constitutional Court has not yet conclusively determined whether the responsible state body may for constitutional reasons refuse service of a statement of claim whose purpose conflicts with essential principles of a free state governed by the rule of law (see BVerfGE 91, 335 (343); 108, 238 (248-249)). (para. 19)

The Court held that in the present case this question had not to be answered since there was no violation of essential principles of a free state governed by the rule of law.

It is indeed true from the point of view of the German legal system that a defendant is subject to added burdens in an American class-action lawsuit. If, however, from the German perspective a plaintiff exploits the weaker position of a defendant to enforce his or her own rights, this alone will not be sufficient to substantiate an allegation that the plaintiff has committed an abuse of law; instead the objective and the specific circumstances of the legal action must indicate that there has been an obvious abuse of law – this is missing in the present case. (para. 20).

The order of the First Chamber of the Second Senate (2 BvR 2247-2249/06) is available in English at the website of the Federal Constitutional Court.

(Many thanks to Prof.  Jan von Hein (Trier) for the tip-off.)

The Chair for Civil Law, Private International Law and Comparative Law at the Europa-Universität Viadrina Frankfurt (Oder) has created under the direction of Prof. Dr. Dieter Martiny a very useful website (in German/English) which contains links on comparative law, private international law, uniform law as well as European Union institutions, case law and Community legislation. Further, it contains links to institutions, case law, legislation, universities, legal journals, lawyers, legal organisations and libraries of most Member States as well as the US, Australia, Israel, Norway, Switzerland and the Ukraine.

The link directory can be found here.

(Many thanks to Dr. Oliver L. Knöfel (Hamburg) for the tip-off.)