Public International Law, Private International Law, European Union Law

Published in: Zbornik Hrvatskog društva za autorsko pravo, 13-14 (2016), 75-99

In the internet era, a number of traditional legal rules need to be revisited and adjusted in order to fit the new circumstances. The rules on international jurisdiction are no exception. This article is focused on the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union regarding the rules on special jurisdiction in torts applicable in all Member States. This rule contained in the Brussels I bis Regulation refers to the place of the harmful event. A geographical criterion such as this one is often difficult to interpret when it comes to internet-related disputes. The territoriality of the intellectual property rights, including copyright, adds another layer of complexity to this endeveaour.

Published in: Korea Private International Law Journal, 22 (2016), 2; 451-472

This article deals with issues at the intersection of two fields, private international law and intellectual property law, viewed from the European Union perspective. The focus is on determining the law which governs different, aspects of intellectual property rights and relationships arising with respect to these rights. As much as these rights defy national borders due to their immaterial subject matter, they are still predominantly national when it comes to their territorial scope. Therefore, territoriality is the first point, and with that related differentiation of the core and other IP issues is the second point to be made in the following pages. Once these foundations are laid, the conflict of law provisions are discussed starting from the core IP issues, moving to contracts and closing with non-contractual obligations. Rather than discussing the abundant doctrinal and scholarly approaches, the purpose of this paper is to depict the current state of law in the EU.

The study examines the three core assertions that summarize the mainstream opinion about the Catalan independence bid, namely that this aspiration is: a) an internal matter of Spain; b) and an unconstitutional endeavour; c) which would lead Catalonia out of the European Union. In this study, I attempted to scrutinize if, and to what extent these assertions could / should be viewed from an alternative perspective.

Adaptation or adjustment has to date received little general attention in EU private international law. The Brussels Ia Regulation, the Succession Regulation and the Matri monial / Registered Partnership Property Regimes Regulation explicitly provide for the tool of adaptation. Nevertheless, those provisions only deal with one certain category of that tool, what is termed transposition. In general, adaptation refers to the judge's discretion to deliberately deviate from a rule in an exceptional case in which two different national laws apply in juxtaposition and the combined application could lead to a contradictory result intended by neither of the two national systems. Adaptation diminishes or eliminates those contradictions. The judge's discretion to adapt national and EU rules implicates questions about the relationship between EU and Member State competence. The present analysis is the first to address this topic comprehensively. It develops a system to decrease contradictions between EU PIL and national law.
As the EU PIL system is still only fragmentary, the analysis is twofold. First, the article analyses the necessity, requirements and means of adaptation in a case that is governed by two EU PIL rules. Second, the article analyses whether the outcome changes if the applicable law is determined by one EU PIL rule and one national PIL rule.

In “Freitag” the CJEU again had to deal with the question whether and under what condition a name acquired in a Member State has to be recognised in another Member State. The decision clarifies one question in the ongoing debate: only “legally acquired” names have to be recognised. Whether a name has been “legally acquired” has to be determined via a referral en bloc to the law of the country in which the name potentially has been acquired. Furthermore, the Court hints indirectly at an exception of such an obligation to recognize, i.e. in the case of circumvention of law when there is no connection to the original Member State at all.

Emer de Vattel (1714–1767), in his influential work The Law of Nations, established a new international statist paradigm which broke with the classical partition of the law into the three realities of ‘persons, things and actions’ (personae, res, actiones). This new paradigm substituted the state for the person, downgraded the generic concept of ‘things’ to the obligations among states in their relations, and changed the focus of the concept of ‘action’ to that of ‘war’ as a legal remedy to resolve conflicts between and among states. This international paradigm (or statist paradigm) has survived almost up to our time in international praxis. Nonetheless, today the statist paradigm appears to be in every way insufficient, since it does not consider humanity as a genuine political community, nor does it reflect the three-dimensionality of the global law phenomenon. The transformation of the law that governs our international community (international law) into a law that is capable of properly ordering the new global human community (global law) demands the creation of a new paradigm, originating in the following conceptual triad: global human community, global issues, and global rule of law. In the construction of this new global paradigm, cosmopolitan constitutionalism could play a key role.

The basis of the public duties, under their respective constitutional mandates, is the plotting strategies and social security policies to protect his subordinates. Knowing the way that has been managed the issue of the right to work and the recent economic crisis five years with regard to the issue of jobs, economic theme to be studied from the responsibility of States as well as from the different business domes. Unemployment, regardless of areas, geographic or the development of countries, I believe a sequel of unpredictable events: increasing poverty, new poor [1]tragic, new poor, more you bankruptcy fraudulent, private credit crisis first and then State, million-dollar state monetary injections for the large holdings, which are finally collecting today in countries such as Greece, Spain, Italy, Germany, States, United States of America, France and even the Chinese booming. Navigating and establishing comparisons and responsibilities between Governments and private enterprise, inside their similarities, complexities and  complicity in the loss of jobs, reducing wages and social provisions, the increase in foreclosures, the creation of new social pacts, changes in labor legislation, conquests workers historical decline, as in the creation of new victims of a global recruitment-related system in total decline.

2012 tarihli Yargıtay İçtihadı Birleştirme Kararı, gerekçesiz yabancı mahkeme kararlarının Türkiye'de tanınması veya tenfiz edilmesinin Türk kamu düzenine aykırı olmadığına hükmetmektedir. Yargıtay'ın bu kararda ulaştığı sonuç, bir kararın gerekçesiz olmasının mutlak olarak kamu düzeni ile ilgili olmadığı yönündedir. Bu makale, ulaşılan bu sonucun yerinde olup olmadığını incelemektedir. Doktrin, karşılaştırmalı hukuk ve uluslararası mahkeme kararları incelendiğinde, bu sonucun desteklenemeyeceği ortaya çıkmaktadır. Özellikle de bir insan hakkı olan ve anayasal düzen ve Avrupa İnsan Hakları Konvansiyonu m. 6'da güvence altına alınmış adil yargılanma hakkı, mahkeme kararlarının gerekçeli verilmesini gerektirmektedir. Bununla birlikte, gerekçesiz yabancı mahkeme kararlarının tanınması veya tenfizinin  Türk kamu düzenine aykırı olacağı sonucuna da mutlak olarak ulaşılması yerinde olmayacaktır. Makul olan sonuç, yabancı mahkemede görülen davada, mahkemenin kararında bir gerekçe olmamasının tarafların savunma haklarını ihlal edecek bir nitelik taşımaması durumunda, kararın gerekçesiz olmasının Türk kamu düzenine aykırılık taşımayabileceği yönünde olacaktır. Ancak Türk hakiminin bu sınırda kalındığının denetimini yapabilmesi için, mahkeme kararının neden gerekçesiz olduğunu açıklayan bilgiye ulaşılması gerekmektedir.

The Turkish Court of Cassation Decision on the Unification of the Case Law dated in 2012 held that the recognition or enforcement of foreign court judgments, which do not incorporate reasons, are not incompatible with Turkish public policy. The Court of Cassation opined for an absolute outcome suggesting that absence of reasons in a foreign court judgment is irrelevant for the purposes of Turkish public policy in recognition and enforcement procedure. This article examines whether the Court of Cassation's approach is plausible. An analysis of the academic writings, comparative law, as well as judgments of international courts, would suggest otherwise. The right to fair trial, which constitutes a constitutional principle and which is guaranteed under Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, in particular, requires that reasons be provided with when courts render their judgments. Notwithstanding that, it would be wrong to suggest that recognition or enforcement of a foreign court judgment without reasons is always and absolutely in breach of Turkish public policy.  It seems that the most plausible approach would be to consider that recognition or enforcement of foreign court judgment, which does not involve reasons, is not in breach of public policy only if parties' right to a fair trial is not infringed with such procedure. It is yet required that the Turkish court, as an enforcement authority, could check whether the case between the parties is of a nature that would not infringe parties' right to fair trial when the judgment is rendered without reasons.

The first reference for a preliminary ruling of the Euro-pean Court of Justice (CJEU) regarding the interpretation of the Rome III Regulation is pending. The case covers two of the most debated subjects concerning the Rome III Regulation: (1) whether the recognition of a "private divorce " obtained abroad falls within the scope of application of the Rome III Regulation and, in the event of an affirmative answer, (2) how to precisely interpret Article 10 Rome III Regulation. Those two questions often occur together. In the following text, I will deal with both of them in the aforesaid order.

Art. 10, 48 EGBGB sehen unter bestimmten Voraussetzungen Regelungen für die Anerkennung eines in einem anderen EU-Mitgliedstaat erworbenen Namens vor.  Der Anknüpfungsgegenstand der Norm, nämlich „Name des Kindes“ war zu konkretisieren.Seit Inkrafttreten der Norm ist umstritten, wann ein Name im Ausland „erworben“ wird. Insbesondere ist unklar, ob die deutschen Behörden verpflichtet sind, eine Rechtmäßigkeitsprüfung durchzuführen und falls ja, in welchem Umfang. Hier bleibt der BGH eine eindeutige Aussage schuldig. Schließlich ging es um die Auslegung der Erklärung der Eltern bezogen auf die Namenswahl für ihr Kind, denn das hierfür vorgesehene Formular war für die Kategorien des deutschen Rechts geschaffen, es gab somit nur Felder für Vor- und Familiennamen.

Dieser Tagungsband beinhaltet die Beiträge, die aus der ersten Tagung des IPR-Nachwuchses in Bonn im Frühjahr 2017 ("Politik und Internationales Privatrecht (?)" hervorgegangen sind. Seit Savigny wurde das in Zentraleuropa herrschende Kollisionsrecht traditionell als 'werteneutral' verstanden, da es das in der Sache
anwendbare Sachrecht nur koordinieren soll. In der zweiten Hälfte des vergangenen Jahrhunderts hat sich die Überzeugung durchgesetzt, dass auch das Kollisionsrecht bestimmte materiellrechtliche Wertungen und Ergebnisse fördern oder verhindern kann. Die Beiträge widmen sich den unterschiedlichen Möglichkeiten und Aspekten des Zusammenspiels von politischen Zielsetzungen mit dem Kollisionsrecht. Es wird auf 'traditionelle' politische Elemente des Internationalen Privat- und Verfahrensrechts eingegangen, insbesondere den verfahrens und kollisionsrechtlichen ordre public sowie Eingriffsnormen bezogen auf Thematiken wie Menschenrechtsverletzungen, Immissions- und Datenschutz und Wirtschaftssanktionen, aber auch auf 'moderne' Tendenzen wie die Politisierung des IPR/IZVR durch die EU und den EuGH.

The legal symposium " (Non-)Uniform interpretation of EU-Instruments on Private International Law by the Courts of the Member States " is organized by the EU-project " unalex-multilingual information for the uniform interpretation of the instruments of judicial cooperation in civil matters " in cooperation with the University of Innsbruck.

The recent decades have brought several changes in legal sources regulating the choice of law in contractual relationships in Slovenia. The Yugoslav Act on Private International Law was applicable until 1999, when it was replaced by the Slovenian Private International Law and Procedure Act. Later, the Rome Convention was applicable for several years and then replaced by the Rome I Regulation. Even though different legal sources would often bring the same result, it is important in a State of law that the courts apply the correct source and its characteristic methods of interpretation. This is possible under the condition that the judges have the appropriate knowledge of the relevant sources and of the relations between them. The author analyses Slovenian case law and searches for answers to many questions and problems that arise in the application of the choice of law rules for contractual relationships, e.g. the temporal application of each legal source, the non-application of choice of law in cases where the CISG is applicable, the overriding mandatory provisions, choice of law in consumer contracts etc. Problems arise already in the determining of the applicable legal source, as well as regarding the application and interpretation of the individual choice of law rules and their procedural "treatment", especially in cases where appellate courts doubt that the first instance courts applied the correct law. In the current situation where Slovenian judges are rarely confronted with a cross-border case, whereas the applicable choice of law rules change relatively often, the author pleads for more judicial training and academic research, as well as for the broader European political effort to “consolidate” the European choice of law rules and private international law in general.

Many legal systems not only know the concept of marriage but also the one of non-marital registered unions, even though the requirements concerning who can conclude the one or the other union differ, especially regarding the sex of the partners. At the conflict of laws level, most countries show the same approach, i.e. providing two different rules for the validity of each institution. Using the examples of Belgian and the German law, both having very different substantive rules but very similar private international law rules, we show that this distinction itself leads to problems for international couples – even within the European Union – and contradicts the general approach which private international law has regarding the characterization of unknown foreign concepts. Inspired by the 1978 Hague Marriage Convention and several national approaches, we propose one broad conflict of laws rule for marital and non-marital unions, leaving substantive values to the public policy exception.

International arbitration differs from domestic court litigation with respect to evidence and the burden of proof, in that there are no formal rules as to the taking of evidence, nor with respect to the burden of proof. This article focuses on certain specific issues relating to the taking of evidence in investor-state disputes connected with the rights and duties of the parties.

The expression “burden of proof” refers not to the degree of proof that is required in order for a fact to be deemed established, but rather to the question of which party has the onus of proving the given allegation. The parties present a wide range of facts to the arbitrators, and it is more or less irrelevant who has the burden of proof. Insofar as these facts are disputed, the parties will present and the tribunal will take evidence. Only if a clear and convincing answer to a factual question cannot be found will the tribunal have regard to the duty to submit evidence and the burden of proof in order to decide to whose disadvantage such non liquet situation has to be resolved.

Discovery in international arbitration is usually limited to exchanges of certain documents and has to be limited, because arbitration would otherwise be deprived of its fundamental functions and advantages. This also applies to investor-state disputes, which are also often specific for a special interest in not submitting or presenting, respectively, certain documents or facts due to a qualified public element.


Mezinárodní rozhodčí řízení se liší od vnitrostátního soudního řízení v záležitostech dokazování a důkazního břemene v tom směru, že nejsou stanovena žádná formální pravidla dokazování a žádná formální pravidla týkající se důkazního břemene. Předmětem tohoto příspěvku jsou některé specifické otázky související s dokazováním ve sporech na ochranu investic v návaznosti na práva a povinnosti stran.

Výraz „důkazní břemeno“ není výrazem označujícím to, jak přesvědčivé musí být důkazy, aby bylo možno skutkovou okolnost jimi prokazovanou označit za prokázanou, ale spíše se tím míní to, která strana je zatížena povinností prokazovat určité tvrzení. Strany předkládají rozhodcům řadu skutečností a je při tom víceméně nerozhodné, kdo má důkazní povinnost. Pokud jsou tyto skutečnosti sporné, strany budou předkládat důkazy a soud je bude provádět. Pouze v případě, že se nedaří nalézt jasnou a přesvědčivou odpověď na skutkovou otázku, zohlední soud důkazní povinnost a důkazní břemeno, aby rozhodl, k tíži které strany je nutno tuto nerozhodnou situaci vyřešit.

Proces discovery je v mezinárodním rozhodčím řízení obvykle omezen na výměnu určitých listin a je zapotřebí jej omezovat. Jinak by rozhodčí řízení ztrácelo na svých základních funkcích a výhodách. To platí i pro investiční spory, kde navíc často existuje zvláštní zájem na tom, že některé listiny a skutečnosti nebudou prezentovány s ohledem na kvalifikovaný veřejný prvek.

We can conclude that non-state rules may include both lex mercatoria, i.e. the law of international merchants, which is not perceived in any uniform way, and currently perhaps also selected rules of EU law, provided that no legal relations are involved that have no connection to the European area. Lex mercatoria can be defined as including international trade usages (such as INCOTERMS, which have become rather popular), generally recognised legal principles (for instance, pacta sunt servanda), and collections of principles governing international agreements (e.g. UNIDROIT Principles).

Lex mercatoria can be applied both in arbitration and in litigation based on four theoretical approaches. The first applicable method is subsidiary application, i.e. lex mercatoria is applied within the limits of binding provisions of applicable law – this method does not raise any problems in practice. Another possibility is application equivalent to national legal systems, i.e. based on the conflict-of-laws method. This method is currently considered controversial and is suitable for arbitration, rather than litigation. The third possibility is the preferential application of lex mercatoria – this is, however, a very extreme approach, even within international commercial arbitration, and requires the due assessment of all relevant circumstances. This category may also include negative choice of law, which postulates that the parties opted for lex mercatoria, because they did not choose any applicable law. This is, again, controversial doctrine, which may only be applied if we first take into consideration all of the circumstances of the case, and primarily the will of the parties. The fourth and last possibility is the ex post choice of law.

As concerns practical possibilities of application, the most frequently employed method is the application of non-state rules in connection with arbitration, where the courts control the proceedings for the recognition and enforcement of foreign arbitral awards. Academics agree that the recognition and enforcement of a foreign award cannot be refused, should the sole grounds for refusal be the fact that the award is based on lex mercatoria. Another possibility of applying non-state rules in courts is application based on domestic laws. The third possibility is the application of non-state rules based on the parties’ choice, i.e. the parties may opt for non-state law. Even if some of the parties disagree, it is possible to envisage the application of non-state rules in litigation, though rather as soft law, i.e. a tool or inspiration for the resolution of the given case. This would be similar to the application of foreign law or foreign case law.

We can also imagine, subject to certain conditions, the application of non-state rules in domestic disputes: (i) if the parties agree to do so, in which case, again, non-state rules would be applied within the limits of binding rules of the applicable law, or (ii) at the court’s discretion. In such case, the court should have regard for any and all circumstances, such as the parties’ experience with international trade, as well as the method of application. The application of non-state rules as soft law can be accepted without objections. Both arbitral tribunals and courts have become more open to non-state rules – for instance, the fact that a decision or award is based on lex mercatoria is not eo ipso contrary to public policy (ordre public).
The application of non-state legal standards is intertwined with the irreplaceable role of a first-rate pre- and post-graduate system of education, and with interactions between extensive practice, on the one hand, and education and training, on the other. This is the reason why schools and other educational institutions must be addressed, and such quality of lectures and courses must be emphasised that will guarantee a high level of theoretical training and high-quality and solid incentives and information from practice. The reason is that this very requirement attains qualified dimensions in the case of trade and legal usages (international, as well as national and regional). The potential of cooperation between educational institutions and international organisations mostly remains untapped – and not only those that create and apply contract templates, unify recommendations, or formulate trade and legal principles, etc.

В заключение можно сказать, что негосударственные правила могут включать в себя, во-первых, lex mercatoria, т. е. право участников международных коммерческих отношений, относительно понимания которого отсутствует единое мнение, во-вторых, в настоящее время, очевидно, и некоторые правовые нормы ЕС, при условии, что речь идет о правоотношениях, в которых отсутствует связь с европейским пространством. Составляющей lex mercatoria можно считать международные торговые обычаи (например, ИНКОТЕРМС, которые в значительной степени стали популярными), общепризнанные правовые принципы или основы (например, pacta sunt servanda) и свод принципов международных договоров (например, Принципы УНИДРУА).

Lex mercatoria может применяться как арбитражами, так и судами общей юрисдикции на основе четырех теоретических подходов. Первым является субсидиарное применение, когда lex mercatoria применяется в рамках когентных положений применяемого права – на практике данный способ применения не встречается с какими-либо проблемами. Вторым вариантом является применение, равноценное национальным правовым системам, т. е. на основании коллизионного метода. В настоящее время данный способ является спорным и применяется скорее арбитражными судами, чем судами общей юрисдикции. Третий вариант – это преимущественное применение lex mercatoria, которое, однако, является крайним случаем даже в контексте международного торгового арбитража, требующего рассмотрения всех существенных обстоятельств. Сюда также можно включить отрицательный выбор права (negative choice), когда предполагается, что стороны, не выбрав применимое право, выбрали именно lex mercatoria. И в данном случае речь снова идет о спорной доктрине, перед применением которой необходимо взвесить все обстоятельства дела и, прежде всего, учесть волеизъявление сторон. Четвертым и последним вариантом является дополнительный выбор права.

С точки зрения практического применения на первом месте (с учетом частоты применения) находится применение негосударственных правил в связи с арбитражным разбирательством, когда суды осуществляют контрольную функцию в ходе разбирательства о признании и приведении в исполнение иностранных арбитражных решений. В этом случае доктрина признает, что нельзя отказать в признании и приведении в исполнение решения иностранного суда только по той причине, что оно основано на lex mercatoria.  Следующим возможным применением негосударственных правил в судах общей юрисдикции является применение на основании национальных правовых норм. Третьим вариантом является применение негосударственных правил на основании выбора сторон, когда стороны могут выбрать негосударственное право. Даже если не все стороны согласны, можно рассматривать возможность применения негосударственных норм судами общей юрисдикции, однако, скорее как т. н. soft law, т. е. в качестве пособия или источника инспирации при рассмотрении и разрешении спора. Аналогично применяется иностранное право или иностранные документы судебной практики.

При определенных условиях также возможно применение негосударственных правил во внутригосударственных спорах. Это, прежде всего, споры, в которых стороны согласуют применение негосударственных правил в рамках когентных положений применяемого права, или по усмотрению суда. В данном случае суд должен рассмотреть все обстоятельства, например, опыт сторон с международной торговлей, а также способ применения. Против применения негосударственных правил как soft law нельзя возражать. В контексте наблюдается растущий интерес арбитражных судов, а также судов [общей юрисдикции/государственных] к негосударственным правилам, который проявляется, например, в том, что основание решения на lex mercatoria еще не означает противоречие публичному порядку.
В связи с применением негосударственных правовых норм важную роль играет качественная вузовская и послевузовская образовательная система и взаимодействие широкой практики с воспитанием и обучением. Поэтому необходимо обращать особое внимание на воспитательные и образовательные учреждения, а также на качество содержания обучения, гарантирующее как высокий уровень теоретической подготовки, так и качественные и обоснованные стимулы и сведения из практики. Именно это требование в торговых и правовых обычаях (международных, а также национальных и региональных) приобретает важность с точки зрения квалификации. В основном остается нереализованным потенциал в области сотрудничества между образовательными учреждениями и международными организациями, причем не только теми, которые занимаются созданием и применением образцов договоров, объединяющих рекомендаций, формулировок торговых и правовых принципов и т. п.