Teaching Guide Information

Presentation

Private International Law, also known as Conflict of laws, is a branch of a certain legal system that deals with private law cases in which an international factor can be found. The problems arising from this diversity are related to jurisdiction (which court has jurisdiction), applicable law (which law governs a given legal dispute) and recognition (under what conditions a judgement rendered by a foreign court will be recognized and enforced).

The course will try to analyse the singularities of Private International Law as being adopted by the European Union, focusing on contracts and torts. The normative instruments to be considered will be Brussels I recast Regulation (jurisdiction on civil matters), Rome I Regulation (applicable law to contractual obligations) and Rome II Regulation (applicable law to non-contractual obligations). Therefore, which are the criteria to assign jurisdiction to a contract case or a tort case, or, which is the applicable law will be the questions to answer. We will tackle these topics from the perspective of European Private International Law considering the rich and diverse case-law passed by the European Court of Justice.

The approach will pay first attention to conflict of jurisdictions and conflicts of laws on contracts (6 sessions), whilst the second leg of the course will be devoted to conflict of jurisdictions and conflicts of laws on torts (6 sessions).

Basic notions of Private International Law are strongly recommended.

Associated skills

General competences and skills

• Attendance and participation in class in a way that proves the reading and preparation of the material given by the professor, raising and answering questions as a result of the explanations.
• Capacity for analysis and synthesis
• Ability to communicate and express the questions analyzed adequately, orally and in writing
• Critical reasoning motivation
• The student must be able to interpret different sources of research, whether legislative, jurisprudential or doctrinal

Specific competences and skills

• Acquisition of sufficient domain to identify, recognize and resolve the heterogeneous legal situation
• Assess the importance of Private international law in particular as a regulatory system for social relations
• Ability to solve problems on Private International Law
• Ability to use different legal sources on Private International Law
• Ability to determine the applicable legal regime (EU, conventional or autonomous private international law) in matters of international jurisdiction and applicable law on Contracts and Torts
• Ability to analyze international jurisdiction and Conflict of Laws rules on Contracts and Torts
• To identify the competent Court and the applicable law to specific cases on Contracts and Torts connected with different legal orders
• The student will be able to identify the applicable jurisprudence, both from national and international bodies, for specific cases that are relevant to the analyzed subject matter.

Learning outcomes

The course will develop all along a term, with twelve two-hour sessions. Each of them will consist of a presentation of a topic by the professor following the case-law method, consisting of critical analysis of the leading cases of the ECJ. We will also recommend reading the leading cases of the ECJ as a summary of the lessons, highlighting points that may be helpful to your understanding or that might be criticized.

Active participation of students will be required, presenting some of the case-law that will be subject of debate. Readings for each session are compulsory as a basis for discussion. Students should participate in class discussions, raising and answering questions as a result of the explanations given by the professor.

Sessions will be usually structured in two parts: first, professor’s lecture about the general lines of the EPIL Regulation at stake; second, case-law discussion based on the cases previously given by the professor.

Contents

I.               Introduction to PIL and presentation of the EPIL system on obligations

-        Previous considerations

1.1. Plurality of legal systems

1.2. Meaning, function and aim of PIL

1.3. Sources of PIL: a branch of a national system

1.4. Essential content of PIL

4.1. Jurisdiction

4.2. Applicable law

4.3. Recognition and enforcement

-        Presentation of the EPIL system

2.1. Inability to adopt a complete system of substantive European Private Law

2.2. Legal diversity within the EU (despite the approximation of national legislations)

2.3. System of EPIL

2.3.1.      Origins

2.3.2.      Is it a system?

2.3.3.      Legislative framework:

A.     Precedents of Brussels I recast Regulation and Rome I Regulation

B.     Rome II

2.4. Principles of the EPIL system and the role of the ECJ

2.4.1.      Principle of mutual recognition

2.4.2.      Principle of continuity in the interpretation

2.4.3.      Principle of coherence among Brussels I recast Regulation, Rome I Regulation and Rome II Regulation

2.4.4.      Uniform interpretation, autonomous notions: the creation of a common core of notions of EPL and EPIL

A.      Civil and commercial matters

B.      Contractual or non-contractual obligations

II.              Jurisdiction: Brussels I recast Regulation. An overview

1.     Presentation

1.1. Significance of Brussels Convention 1968

1.2. Factors to establish the applicability of Brussels I recast Regulation

1.2.1.     Analysis of the case

1.2.2.      Scope of the Regulation

1.2.3.      System of rules to allocate jurisdiction

2.     Definition of the scope

2.1. Material scope

2.2. Geographical scope

2.2.1.      Territorial scope

2.2.2.      Personal scope: importance of the domicile of the defendant (exceptions)

2.3. Temporary scope

3.     Rules of jurisdiction: Principle of Hierarchy

3.1. Exclusive grounds of Jurisdiction

3.2. Party autonomy (prorogation of jurisdiction)

3.2.1.      Jurisdiction by appearance

3.2.2.      Choice of jurisdiction

3.2.3.      Protective jurisdiction for weaker parties (limits are established to prorogation of jurisdiction)

3.3. General jurisdiction – special grounds of jurisdiction: defendant’s domicile

3.4. Grounds of jurisdiction by reason of the subject-matter of the action

3.4.1.      Art. 7.1: matters relating to a contract

3.4.2.      Art. 7.2: matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict

4.     Examination as to jurisdiction:

4.1. The court verifies at the request of the defendant: the general rule

4.2. Reason:

4.2.1.      Vertical structure of the system

4.2.2.      Party autonomy as the backbone of the system

5.     The court verifies of its own motion whether it has jurisdiction: exceptional

5.1. Exclusive grounds of jurisdiction

5.2. Defendant does not enter an appearance

6.     Different hypothetical cases to test our knowledge: A case to summarize: ECJ 17.3.2016, C-175/15, Taser

III.             Prorogation of jurisdiction

1.     Presentation

2.     Significance and function of the prorogation of jurisdiction in the Brussels system

2.1. Implied submission

2.1.1.      Role of the lex fori

2.1.2.      Role of the Brussels system

3.     Choice of jurisdiction clauses

3.1. Reasons behind

3.2. Types of choice of jurisdiction clauses

3.3. Flexibility

3.4. Requirements

3.4.1.      Substantive validity

3.4.2.      Substantive conditions

3.4.3.      Formal conditions

3.4.4.      General conditions

4.     A case to analyse prorogation of jurisdiction: ECJ 18 November 2020, C- 519/19, Ryanair DAC v DelayFix

IV.            Special grounds of jurisdiction: Contracts

1.     Introduction of the special grounds of jurisdiction

1.1. Alternative relation between art. 4.1 and art. 7

1.2. Rationale behind: first approach

1.3. Limits of the case-by-case approach

2.     Characteristic features

2.1. Personal condition requirement

2.2. Optional rule for the claimant

2.3. Application of art. 7: to whom lies the burden of proof its application?

2.4. Direct and special jurisdiction

2.5. Rationale behind: ECJ, 29.4.1994, C-288/92, Custom Made

2.6. Restrictive application

3.     Article 7.1

3.1. Presentation

3.2. Origins

3.3. Reasons for a chronological presentation

3.4. Art. 7.1 a): a step by step interpretation

3.4.1.      Notion of “matters relating to a contract”: ECJ, 17.6.1992, C-26/91, Handte

3.4.2.      Which is the obligation in question?: ECJ, 5.10.1999, C-420/97, Leathertex v. Bodetex

3.4.3.      Determination of the place of performance: ECJ, 6.10.1976, C-12/76, Tessili

3.5. Art.7.1.b)

3.5.1.      Criteria to determine what a contract for the provision of services is

3.5.2.      Criterion to determine what a contract for the sale of goods is

3.5.3.      Guidelines to distinguish a contract for the provision of services from a contract for the sale of goods

A.     The obligation in question: the characteristic obligation

B.     Meaning

C.     Implications face to art. 7.1 a)

3.5.4.      Criteria to determine the place of performance of the characteristic obligation

A.     Meaning

B.     Implications face to art. 7.1.a

C.    Plurality of places of performance

V.              Special grounds of jurisdiction: Protection of weaker parties

1.      Meaning of Sections 3, 4 and 5:

1.1.   Contractual asymmetry

1.2.   A world apart within the universe of Brussels I recast Regulation

2.      Weaker party: an autonomous notion

3.      Passive consumer v active consumer

4. Scope of application:

4.1. Art. 6.1

4.2. Art. 18.1

4.3. Art. 21.2

5. Protection of the weaker party as a defendant
6. Protection of the weaker party as a plaintiff
7. Limits to the prorogation of jurisdiction

7.1. Tacit prorogation

7.2. Express prorogation

8. Exceptional competence control within the field of recognition

9. Case C-47/14 and case C-98/20 will allow us to find out these issues

VI.            Special grounds of jurisdiction: Torts

1.     Art. 7.2

2.     Reviewing its characteristic features as a special ground of jurisdiction

3.     Notion of “matters relating to a tort, delict or quasi-delict”

3.1.   Autonomous notion (negative definition)

3.1.1.  Seeking liability

3.1.2.  Non contractual relationship

3.1.3.  Heterogeneous content

3.2.   Borderline cases

3.2.1.      Pre-contractual liability (comparison with art. 12 Rome II Regulation): ECJ 17.9.2002, Tacconi, C-334/00

3.2.2.      Unjust enrichment (comparison with art. 10 Rome II Regulation): ECJ 9.12.2021, HRVATSKE ŠUME d.o.o., Zagreb v. BP Europa SE, C-242/20

4.      The thorny distinction between contracts and torts

4.1. The national law on which the cause of action relies on versus the autonomous notion to confer jurisdiction

4.2. The limits of characterization

4.3. The limits of the “non-cumulative” principle

4.4. The lack of a rule of jurisdiction based on material connection

4.4.1.      Annex competence (art. 8.1 as an example to be considered)

4.5. Two relevant case-law with different outcome

4.5.1.ECJ 13.3.2014, C‑548/12, Brogsitter

4.5.2.ECJ 24.11.2020, C-59/19, Wikingerhof

5.      Types of tort actions

6.      The ubiquity rule: ECJ 30.11.1976, Bier/Mines de Potasse d’Alsace, C-21/76

7.      Product liability case: ECJ 16.1.2014, Kainz, C-45/13

8.      Intellectual property rights: territoriality

8.1. Plurality of actors and plurality of act places: ECJ 3.4.2014, Hi Hotel, C-387/12

9.      Defamation

9.1. Press written in paper: ECJ 7.3.1995, Fiona Shevill, C-68/93

9.1.1.  The place of the harmful event (jurisdiction on all the damage caused

9.1.2.  The place of damage: the mosaic effect (as many countries as damage caused)

9.2. Criticism on the Shevill rule

9.3. The age of Internet: ECJ 25 October 2011, eDate adverstising and O. Martínez, joined cases C-509/09 and C-161/10; ECJ 17 October 2017, Bolagsupplysningen OÜ and Ingrid Ilsjan, C-194/16; ECJ 21.12.2021, GtflixTV, C-251/20

9.3.1.  The place of damage

9.3.1.1. The mosaic effect (as many countries as damage caused)

9.3.1.2.. The centre of interests (jurisdiction on all the damage caused)

9.3.2.  The place of the harmful event (jurisdiction on all the damage caused)

9.4.   The personality rights of legal persons

9.4.1.  The right of rectification and removal: single and indivisible (only a court that has jurisdiction on all damage caused)

10.       Neutralizing distortions of the ubiquity rule (regarding the place of damage)

10.1.       Indirect damages

10.1.1.   ECJ 19.9.1995, Antonio Marinari, C- 364/93

10.1.2.   ECJ 12.9.2018, Helga Löber v. Barclays Bank, C- 304/17

10.2.       Indirect victim: ECJ 11.1.1990, Dumez France et Tracoba, C-220/88

VII.           Applicable Law: Contracts

1.     Presentation of Rome I Regulation: from Rome Convention to Rome I Regulation

1.1.      Principle of continuity in the interpretation

1.2.      The position of Denmark; the position of the UK

1.3.      Principle of consistency

2.     Material scope

2.1.      Notion of “commercial and civil matters”

2.2.      Notion of “contractual obligation”

2.3.      Exclusions

3.     Territorial scope

3.1.      Universal application

3.2.      “intra-EU” contracts and “extra-EU” contracts

4.     Temporary scope

5.     Relation with existing international Conventions

6.     Choice of law

6.1.   Great flexibility

6.2.   The law of a State

6.3.   International contracts versus domestic contract

6.4.   Express and implied choice

7.     Applicable law in absence of choice of law: a four-step process

7.1.   Catalogue of contracts: a contractual typology

7.2.   Escape clause

7.3.   No characteristic performance

8.     Protection of the weaker parties

9.     Overriding mandatory provisions

9.1.   Mandatory in the sense of PIL

9.2.          Differences between overriding mandatory provisions and domestic mandatory provisions

9.3.          Analysis of art. 9 Rome I Regulation

9.3.1.  The nature of overriding mandatory provisions

9.3.2.  Under what conditions they can be applied

9.3.3.  The content of overriding mandatory provisions

9.3.4.  Public interest

9.4.          Overriding mandatory provisions and EU: analysis of case-law (Ingmar, Unamar, Agro)

VIII.         Applicable Law: Torts

1.       Introduction: Torts

1.   Plurality of regimes on applicable law in Tort Law disputes

2.   Rome II Regulation

2.1.  Scope:

2.1.1.  Material

2.1.2.  Territorial

A.     Geographical

B.     Universal application

2.1.3.  Temporary

2.1.4.  Relation with other instruments: 1971 Hague Convention (Accidents) and 1973 Hague Convention (Product liability)

2.2.  Conflicts of laws’ rules

2.2.1.  General rule (art. 4)

2.2.2.  Specific rules (arts. 5 a 9):

A.   Product liability (art. 5).

B.   Unfair competition and acts restricting free competition (art. 6)

C.  Environmental damage (art. 7)

D.  Infringement of intellectual property rights (art. 8).

E.   Industrial actions (art. 9)

2.2.3.                    Choice of Law (art. 14)

2.3.  Overriding mandatory rules (art. 16)

2.4.  Rules of safety and conduct (art. 17)

2.5.  Other provisions

3.     Applicable Law to personality rights (Defamation)

4.     The Hague Conventions

4.1.   1971 Hague Convention (Traffic Accidents)

4.2.   1973 Hague Convention (Product liability)

Sustainable Development Goals

ODS 5: Gender equality
ODS 8: Decent work and economic growth
ODS 9: Industry, innovation and infrastructure
ODS 10: Reduced inequalities
ODS 12: Responsible consumption and production
ODS 16: Peace, justice and strong institutions
ODS 17: Partnerships for the goals

Evaluation and grading system

• 10 % Class participation: Pertinence and originality of active participation will be highly valued.
• 30 % Case-law oral and written presentation in English (individually, not in groups): Each student must do an oral and written presentation in English of a judgement previously assigned by the professor in order to generate a debate about the case.
• 60 % Final exam will consist of a legal opinion about a hypothetical case dealing with issues discussed during the lectures. Students will have 3 days to submit their opinions. Quality of arguments and pertinence of answers will be highly valued. The exam must be written in English and also must be done individually, not in groups. In case the final exam will not reach the minimum quality requirements, a second exam will be needed.

• Attendance policy: 80% of attendance to classes is required in order to obtain the final grade of the course (greater flexibility shall be accepted in exceptional cases).