DOCSLIB.ORG

Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from Six Regulatory Areas

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from Six Regulatory Areas Extraterritorial Jurisdiction: Lessons for the Business and Human Rights Sphere from Six Regulatory Areas Dr. Jennifer A. Zerk Jennifer Zerk Consulting A report for the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative to help inform the mandate of the UNSG’s Special Representative on Business and Human Rights June 2010 ⎪ Working Paper No. 59 A Working Paper of the: Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative A Cooperative Project among: The Mossavar-Rahmani Center for Business and Government The Center for Public Leadership The Hauser Center for Nonprofit Organizations The Joan Shorenstein Center on the Press, Politics and Public Policy 1 Citation This paper may be cited as: Zerk, Jennifer A. 2010. “Extraterritorial jurisdiction: lessons for the business and human rights sphere from six regulatory areas.” Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative Working Paper No. 59. Cambridge, MA: John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Comments may be directed to the author – [email protected] Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative The Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative at the Harvard Kennedy School of Government is a multi-disciplinary and multi-stakeholder program that seeks to study and enhance the public contributions of private enterprise. It explores the intersection of corporate responsibility, corporate governance and strategy, public policy, and the media. It bridges theory and practice, builds leadership skills, and supports constructive dialogue and collaboration among different sectors. It was founded in 2004 with the support of Walter H. Shorenstein, Chevron Corporation, The Coca-Cola Company, and General Motors. The views expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not imply endorsement by the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, the UN Special Representative on Business and Human Rights, the John F. Kennedy School of Government, or Harvard University. For Further Information Further information on the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative can be obtained from the Program Coordinator, Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative, Harvard Kennedy School, 79 JFK Street, Mailbox 82, Cambridge, MA 02138, telefax (617) 496- 5821, email [email protected]. The homepage for the Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative can be found at: http://www.hks.harvard.edu/m-rcbg/CSRI/ 2 About the author Jennifer Zerk is a writer, researcher and business consultant specialising in the legal aspects of corporate responsibility. A former commercial lawyer, she set up her own consulting business in 2003 to help organisations understand and respond better to the legal challenges posed by corporate responsibility ideas and proposals, and to participate more meaningfully in regulatory reform. Her work covers a range of law- related topics, including regulatory design and analysis, trade practices regulation, international law and policy, legal frameworks for multi-stakeholder initiatives and legal ethics. She has advised on several significant law reform studies and initiatives, including the International Commission of Jurists Expert Panel on Corporate Complicity in International Crimes. Her recent work includes advising the Corporate Responsibility (CORE) Coalition on its proposal for a UK Commission for Business, Human Rights and the Environment. She has written extensively on business and human rights related topics and is the author of “Multinationals and Corporate Social Responsibility” (Cambridge University Press, 2006), the first book-length exploration of the international law context for corporate responsibility. Acknowledgments This report covers significant regulatory ground, and it would not have been possible without the help, advice and assistance of a good number of people. First of all, I would like to express my gratitude to the International Bar Association’s Task Force on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction for their very detailed and thoughtful research into the regulatory practices of states, and the practical problems that arise. The 2009 report of the IBA’s Task Force1 contains a wealth of information about current and recent state practice in most of the areas covered in this report, which obviously provided an extremely valuable starting point for the purposes of this study. Secondly, I would like to thank Vanessa Zimmerman and Rachel Davis for their tireless help, guidance and practical support throughout this research project. Thirdly, I would like to thank the many experts who gave up their time to discuss different aspects of extraterritorial regulation with me, to review materials and to provide additional information; in particular, Julio Barnet, Chris Bates, Antonio Bavasso, Joseph Breham, Alan Boyle, Sara Chidgey, Deba Das, Patrick Doris, Daniel Guzman, Richard Hermer, Stephen Humphreys, Jody Ketteringham, John Knox, Lucinda Low, Kate Orange, Marcos Orellana, Mark Pieth, Jasper Teulings, Louise Tolley, Anna Triponel, Christine Uriarte and Jonathan Winer. Finally, I would like to thank Jo En Low and Michelle Chan for their excellent research assistance throughout this project. Obviously, though, the views expressed in this report are the author’s own, and do not represent those of any of the experts or their institutions. Moreover, while this report was prepared for the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative to inform the mandate of the Special Representative of UN Secretary-General (SRSG) on Business and Human Rights, Professor John Ruggie, its contents do not necessarily represent his views or those of the Harvard Corporate Social Responsibility Initiative. This report is not intended to be, and should not be taken as, legal advice. 1 International Bar Association, ‘Report of the IBA, ‘Report of the Task Force on Extraterritorial Jurisdiction’, February 6, 2009. A copy of the report can be downloaded from http://www.ibanet.org/Article/Detail.aspx?ArticleUid=597D4FCC-2589-499F-9D9B-0E392D045CD1 (the “IBA Task Force Report”). 3 Table of Contents Executive Summary 5 Preface 11 Introduction 12 Chapter 1: Anti-corruption 30 Chapter 2: Securities law 60 Chapter 3: Antitrust 91 Chapter 4: Criminal Jurisdiction Generally 115 Chapter 5: Civil Jurisdiction Generally 144 Chapter 6: Environmental Regulation 176 Conclusion 206 Annex 1: Abbreviations used in this report 218 Annex 2: Study methodology 220 Annex 3: List of case studies referred to in this report 222 4 Executive summary This study is intended to assist the Special Representative of the UN Secretary- General on Business and Human Rights (“SRSG”) as he works to operationalize the UN “Protect, Respect and Remedy” Framework, and particularly as he develops guidance on the state duty to protect against corporate-related abuse. It does so by exploring extraterritoriality in six different regulatory areas: anti-corruption, securities, antitrust, criminal law, civil cases generally and the environment. The study examines the legal frameworks through which states attempt to influence private actors and conduct abroad, and associated legal and practical challenges, in order to draw some lessons for the business and human rights (B&HR) sphere. In doing so, it adopts the distinction made by the SRSG between the use of domestic measures with extraterritorial implications and the exercise of direct extraterritorial jurisdiction over private actors or activities abroad. The SRSG has suggested that the different ways that states may seek to influence private foreign actors and conduct may be arranged in the form of a matrix. This matrix has two rows, based on the distinction noted above between domestic measures with extraterritorial implications and direct extraterritorial jurisdiction. And it has three columns – public policies, regulation, and enforcement actions. Their combination yields six cells, each offering a range of options. This matrix shows that extraterritoriality is not a binary matter. Instead, it encompasses a wide range of possible regulatory actions. And, as the SRSG has noted, not all of these are equally likely to trigger objections in all circumstances. States’ use of direct extraterritorial jurisdiction is often controversial. This is because of the political and legal importance of territorial sovereignty: the idea that each state should be able to regulate activities within its own territory in accordance with its own policies and priorities. However, globalization has posed challenges to the effectiveness of this territorially-based system. Increasingly, governments recognise that, in some areas, effective regulation of activities within their territories demands some degree of control over private activities beyond their borders. Moreover, globalizing factors – such as international trade and travel, foreign investment, and modern communications technologies – have all greatly increased the potential for overlapping jurisdictional claims. States have made use of domestic measures with extraterritorial implications to help influence the behavior of private actors abroad without the direct use of extraterritorial jurisdiction. Examples include asking locally incorporated parent companies to take certain steps in relation to the management of foreign subsidiaries. Other methods involve the use of reporting obligations, or import or export controls, and taking steps to monitor and reduce risks associated with projects requiring export assistance. These measures can be highly influential in relation to private foreign conduct. They also often seem to attract less controversy than
Load more

Recommended publications
  • The Biopolitics and Geopolitics of Border Enforcement in Melilla
    The biopolitics and geopolitics of border enforcement in Melilla By: Corey Johnson and Reece Johnson Johnson, C., & Jones, R. (2018). The biopolitics and geopolitics of border enforcement in Melilla. Territory, Politics, Governance 6(1), 61-80. https://doi.org/10.1080/21622671.2016.1236746 This is an Accepted Manuscript of an article published by Taylor & Francis in Territory, Politics, Governance on 06 October 2016, available online: http://www.tandfonline.com/10.1080/21622671.2016.1236746. ***© 2016 Regional Studies Association. Reprinted with permission. No further reproduction is authorized without written permission from Taylor & Francis. This version of the document is not the version of record. Figures and/or pictures may be missing from this format of the document. *** Abstract: This article uses the multiple and contradictory realities of Melilla, a pene-enclave and -exclave of Spain in North Africa, to draw out the contemporary practice of Spanish, European Union, and Moroccan immigration enforcement policies. The city is many things at once: a piece of Europe in North Africa and a symbol of Spain’s colonial history; an example of the contemporary narrative of a cosmopolitan and multicultural Europe; a place where extraterritorial and intraterritorial dynamics demonstrate territory’s continuing allure despite the security challenges and the lack of economic or strategic value; a metaphorical island of contrasting geopolitical and biopolitical practices; and a place of regional flows and cross-border cooperation between Spain, the EU, and Morocco. It is a border where the immunitary logic of sovereign territorial spaces is exposed through the biopolitical practices of the state to ‘protect’ the community from outsiders.
    [Show full text]
  • The Extraterritorial Application of American Law
    THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF AMERICAN LAW: MYTHS AND REALITIES Laurent Cohen-Tanugi February 2015 THE EXTRATERRITORIAL APPLICATION OF AMERICAN LAW: MYTHS AND REALITIES Table of Contents Introduction ..........................................................................................................................................1 I. Extraterritoriality and International Law ......................................................................................2 Extraterritoriality: What Is It All About? .........................................................................................2 The Specificities of American Law ..................................................................................................5 II. Transatlantic Convergence ...........................................................................................................6 The Limitation of Extraterritorial Enforcement in the United States ...............................................7 The Expansion of the Extraterritorial Projection of European Law ...............................................11 III. An Effective Catalyst of the Internationalization of Law ..........................................................15 Extraterritoriality and Globalization ...............................................................................................15 American Leadership in International Economic Law Enforcement .............................................16 From Confrontation to Cooperation ...............................................................................................18
    [Show full text]
  • Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Doctrinal Disparity Between Forum Non Conveniens and Judgment Recognition and Enforcement in Transnational Litigation
    Bridging the Gap: Addressing the Doctrinal Disparity Between Forum Non Conveniens and Judgment Recognition and Enforcement in Transnational Litigation ALEXANDER R. Moss* TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION .......................................... 210 1. CURRENT DOCTRINES OF FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS ................................ 214 A. FORUM NON CONVENIENS ............................ 215 1. Introduction . ................................. 215 2. The Adequate Alternative Forum ................. 216 3. Private and Public Interest Factors ................ 217 4. Degree of Deference to Plaintiff's Choice of Forum .... 218 B. ENFORCEMENT OF FOREIGN JUDGMENTS .................. 220 1. Introduction . ................................. 220 2. The Roots of the Current Doctrine ................ 221 3. Harmonization of Recognition & Enforcement Standards .................................. 223 C. THE DOCTRINAL GAP BETWEEN FORUM NON CONVENIENS AND JUDGMENT RECOGNITION AND ENFORCEMENT .............. 225 II. ISSUES RAISED BY THE CURRENT GAP IN STANDARDS ............ 225 A. INADEQUACY OF THE "ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE FORUM" STANDARD . ...................................... 227 * Georgetown Law, J.D. 2017; Georgetown University, B.S.F.S. 2011. © 2017, Alexander R. Moss. I am extremely thankful to Professor David Stewart for his guidance and insight in helping me develop my topic and improve this Note over the course of the production process. Many thanks are also due to The Georgetown Law Journal's exceptional editors and staff, especially Allie Berkowitch, Spencer McManus, Elizabeth Janicki, Ryan Giannetti, and the Notes Committee, for all of their hard work and thoughtful suggestions along the way. Finally, I would like to thank my wonderful family and friends, who have been with me every step of the way during my law school experience, and without whom none of this would have been possible. 209 210 THE GEORGETOWN LAw JOURNAL [Vol. 106:209 B.
    [Show full text]
  • Conflict of Laws. Jurisdiction of the Subject-Matter. Collateral Attack
    RECENT CASES Conflict of Laws-Jurisdiction of the Subject-Matter-Collateral Attack-[Fed- eral].-The plaintiff sued in an Illinois court to collect on bonds which had been guar- anteed by the defendant. In a previous bankruptcy proceeding a federal court con- firmed a reorganization plan providing for a cancellation of the defendant's guarantee of the bonds. While the state action was pending, the plaintiff petitioned the federal court to modify its decree on the ground that it had no power to release the guarantor under the Bankruptcy Act. The petition was denied and no appeal was taken. Sub- sequently the defendant pleaded the decree of the federal court as a bar in the state action. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed judgment for the plaintiff. On cer- tiorari to the Supreme Court, held, reversed. A court's adjudication of its jurisdiction over the sub~ect inatter, where the issue has been contested, is resjudicatain a subse- quent action. Stoll v. Gottlieb.x Previous decisions have established that a court's judgment as to its jurisdiction over the person, where actually contested, may be resjudicataand impregnable to col- lateral attack.2 Whether or not the same results would be reached in the case of decisions on jurisdiction of the subject-matter, which present more acute theoretical difficulties, has been doubtful until the instant decision.3 In extending the doctrine of res judicata to controversies over jurisdiction of the subject-matter, which have been contested,4 the Supreme Court has taken another step in overruling the classical dogma that jurisdictional questions are always open to collateral inquiry.
    [Show full text]
  • Extended CFP: Special Territorial Status and Extraterritoriality, Longyearbyen Svalbard, January 20-24 2019
    H-Sport Extended CFP: Special Territorial Status and Extraterritoriality, Longyearbyen Svalbard, January 20-24 2019 Discussion published by Zachary T. Androus on Friday, September 7, 2018 Dear Colleagues, Island Dynamics is now accepting proposal submissions for the interdisciplinary conference Special Territorial Status and Extraterritoriality: Exceptional Sovereignties and Sovereign Exceptions, to be held in Longyearbyen, Svalbard, January 20-24, 2019, the world's only visa- free zone and its northernmost inhabited territory. In addition to an engaging conference program, delegates will also be able to enjoy a dogsled excursion into the polar night and a guided visit to a historical Russian mining operation. The deadline for proposing a presentation is September 30, 2018. To submit a proposal and for registration information, please visit www.islanddynamics.org/extraterritoriality2019.html. While sport is not mentioned specifically in the call, the topic intersects with sport practices in a number of important ways and proposals addressing any of them are welcome. Call for Proposals: Territorially based sovereign states are commonly presented as the basic, fundamental units of the international political world system, and they clearly represent powerful, even dominant, forces in global institutions of governance. But the world is also replete with myriad cases that defy the presumed logic of state sovereignty as the elemental operating unit of the global political system. Certain contexts for extraterritorial legal jurisdiction over individuals or places, and the corresponding immunity from local laws, are well-established in international relations practice regarding diplomatic and military installations and personnel. Extraterritoriality can be conceptually expanded to effectively address a range of other ways in which particular territories, institutions, and individuals are subject to exceptional forms of political, legal, and existential status.
    [Show full text]
  • Guide to Jurisdiction in OSHA, Region 10 Version 2018.2
    Guide to Jurisdiction in OSHA, Region 10 Version 2018.2 General Principles - Federal civilian employers are covered by OSHA throughout the four-state region. State, county, municipal and other non-federal public employers (except tribal government employers) are covered by state programs in Washington, Oregon, and Alaska. There is no state program in Idaho, and OSHA’s coverage of public employers in Idaho is limited to the federal sector. OSHA regulates most private employers in Idaho with exceptions noted below. Industry / Location State Coverage OSHA Coverage Air Carriers1 Washington, Oregon and Alaska: Air Washington, Oregon and Alaska: carrier operations on the ground only. Aircraft cabin crewmembers’ exposures to only hazardous chemicals (HAZCOM), bloodborne pathogens, noise, recordkeeping, and access to employee exposure and medical records. Idaho: Air carrier operations on the ground. Aircraft cabin crewmembers’ exposures to only hazardous chemicals (HAZCOM), bloodborne pathogens, noise, recordkeeping, and access to employee exposure and medical records. Commercial Diving Washington, Oregon and Alaska: Washington, Oregon, and Alaska: Employers with diving operations staged Employers with diving operations from shore, piers, docks or other fixed staged from boats or other vessels afloat locations. on navigable waters 2. Idaho: All diving operations for covered employers. 1 The term “air carrier refers to private employers engaged in air transportation of passengers and/or cargo. The term “aircraft cabin crew member” refers to employees working in the cabin during flight such as flight attendants or medical staff; however, the term does not include pilots. 2 In the state of Washington, for vessels afloat, such as boats, ships and barges moored at a pier or dock, DOSH’s jurisdiction ends at the edge of the dock or pier and OSHA’s jurisdiction begins at the foot of the gangway or other means of access to the vessel; this principle applies to all situations involving moored vessels, including construction, longshoring, and ship repair.
    [Show full text]
  • The Holy See (Including Vatican City State)
    COMMITTEE OF EXPERTS ON THE EVALUATION OF ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING MEASURES AND THE FINANCING OF TERRORISM (MONEYVAL) MONEYVAL(2012)17 Mutual Evaluation Report Anti-Money Laundering and Combating the Financing of Terrorism THE HOLY SEE (INCLUDING VATICAN CITY STATE) 4 July 2012 The Holy See (including Vatican City State) is evaluated by MONEYVAL pursuant to Resolution CM/Res(2011)5 of the Committee of Ministers of 6 April 2011. This evaluation was conducted by MONEYVAL and the report was adopted as a third round mutual evaluation report at its 39 th Plenary (Strasbourg, 2-6 July 2012). © [2012] Committee of experts on the evaluation of anti-money laundering measures and the financing of terrorism (MONEYVAL). All rights reserved. Reproduction is authorised, provided the source is acknowledged, save where otherwise stated. For any use for commercial purposes, no part of this publication may be translated, reproduced or transmitted, in any form or by any means, electronic (CD-Rom, Internet, etc) or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or any information storage or retrieval system without prior permission in writing from the MONEYVAL Secretariat, Directorate General of Human Rights and Rule of Law, Council of Europe (F-67075 Strasbourg or [email protected] ). 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS I. PREFACE AND SCOPE OF EVALUATION............................................................................................ 5 II. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.......................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Implications for White-Collar Criminals [Note]
    The New U.S.-U.K. Extradition Regime: Implications for White-Collar Criminals [Note] Item Type Article; text Authors Copenhaver-Celi, Jennifer Nicole Citation 25 Ariz. J. Int'l & Comp. L. 157 (2008) Publisher The University of Arizona James E. Rogers College of Law (Tucson, AZ) Journal Arizona Journal of International and Comparative Law Rights Copyright © The Author(s) Download date 05/10/2021 09:03:41 Item License http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/ Version Final published version Link to Item http://hdl.handle.net/10150/659051 THE NEW U.S.-U.K. EXTRADITION REGIME: IMPLICATIONS FOR WHITE-COLLAR CRIMINALS Jennifer Nicole Copenhaver-Celi* I. INTRODUCTION On July 13, 2006, three British citizens, David Bermingham, Giles Darby, and Gary Mulgrew ("the NatWest Three") were flown to Houston, Texas to face fraud charges.' The victim of their alleged fraud was a British corporation. Nearly all of the allegedly criminal dealings took place in Great Britain. Yet, the NatWest Three will be 2 tried in the United States. Ian Norris is another British citizen 3facing extradition to the United States. His alleged crime is price-fixing. The NatWest Three and Ian Norris were extradited under a new treaty between the United Kingdom and the United States, the 2003 Extradition Treaty,4 and under a new British statute, the 2003 Extradition Act.5 Extradition arrangements under the treaty and the statute provoked public outrage in the United Kingdom. A range of public figures have spoken out against the arrangements, from politicians on the left and right, to businessmen, to civil-liberties activists.6 Much of the uproar was over a lack of reciprocity.7 When the NatWest Three were extradited in July 2006, the United States had *.
    [Show full text]
  • The United States Supreme Court Limits Non-Domicile Jurisdiction Over Foreign Companies
    The United States Supreme Court Limits Non-Domicile Jurisdiction over Foreign Companies By Scott J. Hymani and Erin S. Kubotaii The inevitable risk of doing business in the United States is that one day your company may be sued. The question is: but where? Our system of federalism unfortunately suggests that where a company might be sued can be outcome determinative of the result of the case. Accordingly, foreign companies doing business in the United States have faced forum-shopping plaintiffs hailing them into Court in a state where they do business, but where neither the plaintiff nor the wrong have any nexus to the forum state. The United States Supreme Court recently put a stop to such forum-shopping Plaintiffs in Bristol-Myers Squibb Company v. Superior Court of California, 582 U.S. ___ (June 19, 2017) (“Bristol-Myers”), and clarified where a foreign business may by subject to suit. First, a brief primer on personal jurisdiction and our system of federalism is warranted. The 14th Amendment of the United States’ Constitution limits the extent to which State courts can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Personal jurisdiction is necessary in order for a State court to exercise legal authority over a party and to render a valid judgment. The defendant’s relationship to and activity in a forum State determines whether a State can exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Obviously, a defendant who is domiciled in the State is subject to the State’s jurisdiction. This is called general jurisdiction. A business’s “domicile” is often regarded as its home, such as where it is incorporated or where it maintains its principal place of its business.
    [Show full text]
  • Extradition and the Natwest Three: Unintended Consequences Economist, July 15, 2006 Reciprocity Is Not the Issue; Safeguarding the Right to a Fair Trial Is
    Extradition and the NatWest Three: Unintended consequences Economist, July 15, 2006 Reciprocity is not the issue; safeguarding the right to a fair trial is THEY weren't dragged away in leg-irons, but the dispatch by air on July 13th of three British bankers to America to stand trial was as dramatic as legal spectacles get. David Bermingham, Gary Mulgrew and Giles Darby--the so-called NatWest Three--are charged with helping to pull off a £11m ($20m) fraud linked to the collapsed energy giant, Enron. The suspects are British; their victim is British; virtually all the alleged wrongful dealing was carried out in Britain. Their trial, however, like that of Enron's executives, will be in Houston. Outrage over their plight, and the flawed fast-track bilateral extradition treaty that produced it, has united left and right, law lords and NGOs, businessmen and civil-liberties activists (see page 34). Most of the fuss has been about reciprocity--or the lack of it. The three were handed over under the terms of a treaty signed by Britain and America in March 2003 and broadly enshrined in Britain's omnibus Extradition Act later that year. The treaty and the act reduced the supporting material that America must provide in requesting extradition from Britain. But America (which had a lousy record of surrendering Irish terrorists to Britain) has yet to ratify the treaty. Under the old rules America had to present "prima facie" evidence of guilt on the basis of which a jury, in the absence of a defence, could have convicted somebody.
    [Show full text]
  • Setting the Scene: Key Aspects of the EU Acquis in Family Matters
    Maria Caterina Baruffi Full Professor in International Law (University of Verona, Law Department) [email protected] Setting the scene: key aspects of the EU acquis in family matters Trier, 10-11 July 2017 Topics of the seminar 1) EU competence in civil judicial cooperation; 1a) the development of primary law regarding civil judicial cooperation 2) legal basis and legislative procedures for the adoption of acts in family matters; 3) family matters addressed by relevant EU Regulations; 4) main issues: diversity among national substantive legislations and enforcement procedures; 5) interplay with Hague Conventions 2 1. EU competence on civil judicial cooperation Background • principle of free movement of persons, guaranteed throughout all EU MS since the Maastricht Treaty • since then, the EU legislation has aimed at strengthening the protection of this fundamental freedom, so that every EU citizen can exercise it in each MS as he/she were in his/her own MS State of origin 3 Source: ec.europa.eu 1. EU competence on civil judicial cooperation Objectives 1) building a European area of justice through cooperation (Title V TFEU “Area of freedom, security and justice”) 2) different levels of cooperation: - administrative - judicial (both in civil and criminal matters) - Police bodies 3) avoiding the complexity of legal and administrative systems in EU countries, which can prevent and discourage individuals and companies from exercising their rights 4 Source: ec.europa.eu 1. EU competence on civil judicial cooperation 4) individuals and companies should be able to “approach courts and authorities in any EU country as easily as in their own” according to the conclusions of the Tampere European Council (15 and 16 October 1999) -> closer cooperation between the authorities of the EU MS should eliminate any obstacles deriving from the complexity of 28 different systems.
    [Show full text]
  • Pending Litigation, Impending Brexit: What Next for Dispute Resolution Clauses?
    October 2020 Pending litigation, impending Brexit: What next for dispute resolution clauses? There has been a recent influx of cases before the English courts in relation to jurisdiction to determine a dispute. Whether this is linked to the impending departure of the UK from the European Union or whether this is just a coincidence is unclear. What is apparent is that this complex area of law is about to become increasingly complicated as well as contentious. Selecting a future-proof dispute resolution clause is never easy. In the current uncertain times, it is particularly challenging. In this article, we highlight the key issues to be aware of from a review of recent case law. What are the key differences between the Under the Lugano Convention (and earlier Brussels legislative instruments in the European Regulation3), if parties commence parallel Regime? proceedings in the courts of contracting states, priority is always given to the court first seised. That An outline of the European Regime (including the is the case whether the court first seised is the Hague Choice of Court Convention 2005, the “Hague chosen court in a jurisdiction clause or not. All other Convention”) is available in our Brexit Disputes courts must then stay proceedings until the court guide here . By way of a brief reminder, the Brussels first seised determines jurisdiction. This is known as Recast1 will no longer apply to the UK from the end the “lis alibi pendens” rule. The rule is open to abuse of the transition period (31 December 2020). The UK by a litigation tactic called the “Italian Torpedo”, has applied to join the Lugano Convention 20072 but where a party deliberately commences proceedings has not yet received the consent of the other in a slow-moving jurisdiction (in breach of a contracting states (notably the EU).
    [Show full text]