The impact of article 6(1) of the ECHR on private international law

International and Comparative Law Quarterly

Volumn 56, Issue 1, 2007, Pages 1-48

  Fawcett, J J ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NOTTINGHAM   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33846069840     PISSN: 00205893     EISSN: 14716895     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1093/iclq/lei148     Document Type: Article

References (445)

1. J v C [1970] AC 668, HL;
2. Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 278 (per Lord Cross), 283 (per Lord Salmon), HL;
3. Williams & Humbert Ltd v W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368, 428 (per Lord Templeman)
4. The Playa Larga [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 171, 190, CA;
5. Settebello Ltd v Banco Toto and Acores [1985] 1 WLR 1050, 1056, CA.
6. See generally A Bell, 'Human Rights and Transnational Litigation-Interesting Points of Intersection' in S Bottomley and D Kinley (eds), Commercial Law and Human Rights (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002) 115.
7. They continue to be raised in other common law jurisdictions which are not a party to that Convention: For Australia see Dow Jones & Company Inc v Gutnick (2002) 210 CLR 575, HC of Australia;
8. for Canada see Recherches internationales Quebec v Cambior Inc 1998 CarswellQue 4511, [72], Cour Superieure du Quebec.
9. See in relation to Art 8 (right to respect for private and family life) J v C [1970] AC 668, HL;
10. Re J (a child) (return to foreign jurisdiction: Convention rights) [2005] UKHL 40, [2005] 3 WLR 14
11. Re I (Minors) 23 April 1999 unreported, CA;
12. Art 10 (right to freedom of expression) Skrine & Co v Euromoney Publications Plc [2002] EMLR 15
13. Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Prudential Insurance Co of America (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1154, [2004] ETMR 29
14. Art 12 (right to marry) Wilkinson v Kitzinger (Same-sex Marriage) The Times 21 Aug 2006
15. Art 14 (prohibition of discrimination) Re J, Art 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property) on which see Shanshal v Al-Kishtaini [2001] EWCA Civ 264, [50]-[62], [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 601
16. Orams v Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB)
17. Carruthers, The Transfer of Property in the Conflict of Laws (OUP, Oxford, 2005) paras 8.71-8.76.
18. See also Emin v Yeldag [2002] 1 FLR 956.
19. Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 Oct 1979, Series A, No 32; (1979) 2 EHRR 305
20. Golder v UK, Judgment of 21 Feb 1975, Series A, No 18; (1975) 1 EHRR 524
21. Osman v United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 Oct 1998; (2000) 29 EHRR 245.
22. For the right of access in relation to the transnational enforcement of environmental law, see The International Law Association Toronto Conference (2006) Draft Rules on Transnational Enforcement of Environmental Law, rule 1.
23. For the provision of the means of execution of a judgment and Art 6 see: Immobiliare Saffi v Italy, Judgment of 28 July 1999
24. Orams v Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB).
25. Ashingdane v United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 May 1985, Series A, No 93, para 57; (1985) 7 EHRR 528
26. Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, Judgment of 15 Feb 2005, para 62.
27. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, [7], [2004] 3 WLR 23.
28. See Art 34 of the ECHR. This extends to legal persons. See, eg, in relation to a company applicant, Dombo Beheer BV v the Netherlands, Judgment of 22 Sept 1993, Series A No 274-A; (1994) 18 EHRR 213.
29. The Ullah Case (n 5) [7].
30. See also Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37, [15], [2004] 1 WLR 2241.
31. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 27, [41] (per Baroness Hale), [2004] 3 WLR 58.
32. See also Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) (n 7) [15].
33. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8) [42].
34. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5) [9]
35. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8) [41].
36. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5) [9].
37. ibid [42].
38. Quaere whether this accurately reflects the position in Soering v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No 161; [1989] 11 EHHR 439.
39. R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8) [42].
40. Judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A No 240; (1992) 14 EHRR 745, 749.
41. Prohibition of torture.
42. Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No 161; [1989] 11 EHHR 439.
43. See Einhorn v France, Decision of 16 Oct 2001; Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001-XI, p 275
44. Tomic v United Kingdom, Decision of 14 Oct 2003
45. Bankovic v Belgium, Decision of 12 Dec 2001; (2001) 11 BHRC 435.
46. See also MAR v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR CD 120
47. Dehwari v Netherlands, Decision of 12 Mar 1998; (2000) 29 EHRR CD 120.
48. For an English analysis of the case-law see R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5).
49. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5)
50. followed in R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8).
51. See also Re J (a child) (return to foreign jurisdiction: Convention rights) [2005] UKHL 40, [2006] 1 AC 80.
52. The Soering case (n 12) para 113
53. Judge Matscher in Drozd. Art 3 does not require this.
54. R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5)
55. followed in R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8).
56. Re J (a child) (n 2) [42]; following the Ullah case.
57. Right to respect for private and family life.
58. Re J (a child) (n 2). On the facts there was no such risk.
59. Kudla v Poland, Judgment of 26 Oct 2000.
60. The International Law Association call this referral; see the 2000 Leuven/London Principles on Declining and Referring Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters.
61. Re J (a child) (n 2), involved transferring a child abroad.
62. In Canada, denial of access leading to transfer abroad to a State where there was a reasonable apprehension of bias would be a failure to provide a fair hearing as guaranteed under s 2 of the Bill of Rights, Aristocrat v National Bank of the Republic of Kazakhstan 2001 Carswell Ont 2534, 21 CPC (5th) 147, Ontario Superior Court of Justice.
63. There is no breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in such a case, see Beals v Saldanha 2003 SCC 72, [78], SC of Canada.
64. Judgment of 20 July 2001; (2001) 35 EHRR 44.
65. Making the point that the Vatican has not ratified the ECHR.
66. See P Kinsch, 'The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreigh Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments' in T Einhorn and K Siehr (eds), International Co-operation Through Private International Law- Essays in Memory of Peter Nygh (TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2004 197, 218-22
67. Hartley, in a case note (2004) 120 LQR 211.
68. See also Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) (n 7); discussed below.
69. The Court of Appeal in Jomah v Attar [2004] EWCA Civ 417, [49], reversed by the House of Lords in Re J (a child) (n 2), interpreted the 'relevant' proceedings as being those before the Italian courts for enforcement. But the ECtHR concluded that 'the Italian courts breached their duty of satisfying themselves... that the applicant had had a fair trial in the proceedings under canon law'. The House of Lords did not discuss this point.
70. Pellegrini (n 29) [40].
71. P Kinsch (n 31) 227-8.
72. With the exception of Art 13.
73. Or decision, declaration or advisory opinion of that Court.
74. Section 2(1).
75. R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, [26], [2003] 2 AC 295
76. Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26, [18].
77. Section 3(1).
78. Section 6(1). This is subject to s 6(2), which sets out circumstances where para (1) does not apply.
79. [2004] EWCA Civ 168, [2005] Fam 267, CA.
80. ibid [40].
81. [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76.
82. ibid [42].
83. The question whether an exception should be made to the lis pendens rule in what is now Art 27 of the Brussels I Regulation in cases where there is substantial delay in the court first seised is considered below.
84. 5] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390 - by then it was not in dispute that the English courts had jurisdiction.
85. 5] EWCA Civ 75, [2005] QB 946.
86. ibid [71].
87. ibid [70].
88. See Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 470.
89. Kroch v Rossell [1937] 1 All ER 725, CA;
90. referred to in Dow Jones v Jameel (n 46) [50].
91. Case C-281/02 [2005] QB 801, para 270.
92. 0] 1 WLR 1545.
93. 7] AC 460.
94. ibid 1561.
95. See, eg, AG of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A firm) [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390, discussed above.
96. See the discussion below.
97. The Act was not yet in force when Lubbe was decided.
98. Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 Oct 1979, Series A, No 32; (1979) 2 EHRR 305. But has a question arisen in connection with a Convention right? Counsel may have raised such a question but arguably the court, by deciding not to stay the English proceedings, has, in effect, said that this question no longer arises.
99. 1] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76.
100. But a foreign court may object to the injunction as denying access to their courts, as provided for by Art 6, and refuse to enforce the order on public policy grounds, see Evialis SA v SIAT [2003] EWHC 863, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 377, [52]-[58]. The affront to another court would then be a reason for not exercising the discretion to grant an injunction.
101. Where the ground for grant of an injunction is the breach of an arbitration agreement, the argument that the right to a public hearing under Art 6 requires the court to adopt a 'reluctant' approach to the incorporation of the agreement into a bill of lading has been rejected: Welex AG v Rosa Maritime Ltd (The Epsilon Rosa) [2002] 2 Lloyd's Rep 81, [30]-[31]
102. appeals dismissed without discussion of this point, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, CA.
103. The Kribi (n 42) [42].
104. Midland Bank plc v Laker Airways Ltd [1986] QB 689, CA.
105. 1] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76, [41].
106. 4] EWCA Civ 857.
107. ibid [46].
108. Case C-116/02 [2005] QB 1, [2003] ECR-1 4693.
109. Riccardi Pizzati v Italy (App 62361/00), Judgment of 10 Nov 2004
110. Bottazzi v Italy (App 34884/97), Judgment of 28 July 1999
111. Salesi v Italy, Judgment of 26 Feb 1993, Series A No 257E; (1998) 26 EHRR 187, para 24
112. Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy, Judgment of 27 Oct 1994, Series A no 293-B; (1994) 19 EHRR 368, para 61.
113. The Bottazzi case, ibid, pointed out that since Capuano v Italy (Series A no 119) it had delivered 65 such judgments.
114. The Bottazzi case (n 68) points out that there are more than 1,400 such reports.
115. AG Leger, para 88.
116. This might have convinced the Commission to argue for an exception. One of the arguments put forward by it against the exception was that it was for the ECtHR to determine whether in the particular circumstances the delay was such that the interests of a party were seriously affected.
117. Case C-260/89 ERT v DEP [1991] ECR I-2925, para 41.
118. ibid.
119. See the numerous cases cited by the ECtHR in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Judgment of 30 June 2005, para 73.
120. Case C-185/95 Baustahllgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paras 20 and 21
121. Joined Cases C-174/98 and C-189/98 Netherlands and Van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR I-1, para 17
122. Case C-135/92 Fiskano v Commission [1994] ECR I-2885, para 39
123. Case C-32/95 Commission v Lisrestal [1996] ECR I-5373, para 21.
124. See the Bosphorus case (n 74) paras 77-84.
125. Art 6(2) provides that 'The Union shall respect fundamental rights, as guaranteed by the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms signed in Rome on 4 Nov 1950 and as they result from the constitutional traditions common to the Member States.'
126. The Bosphorus case (n 74) para 165.
127. Case C-7/98 [20011 QB 709, paras 26 and 42
128. 0] ECR I-1935
129. discussed below. These Community law developments also influenced the ECJ in Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 23, discussed below, which applied Krombach in the context of international insolvency proceedings under Council Regulation No 1346/2000.
130. The Gasser case (n 177) [70]. See also [68]. See further in the discussion below.
131. Hartley, 'Choice-of-court agreement, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: Reflection on the Gasser case' in Le droit international prive: Esprit et methodes (Melanges en l'honneur de Paul Lagarde) (Dalloz, Paris, 2005) 383, argues it should be the other way round because of Art 307 of the Treaty on European Union.
132. Judgment of 21 Nov 2001
133. 1) 34 EHRR 273.
134. See also to the same effect on State immunity and human rights: McElhinney v Ireland, Judgment of 21 Nov 2001
135. 2] 34 EHRR 13-civil claim in tort brought in Ireland against the British Government following acts by its agent (a soldier) within the sphere of sovereign activity;
136. Fogarty v United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 Nov 2001
137. 2] 34 EHRR 12-civil claim for discrimination brought in England against the US government by an applicant for re-employment at the US embassy.
138. See also App No 50021/00, Kalogeropoulou v Greece and Germany, 12 Dec 2002.
139. Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) para 52
140. the McElhinney case (n 82) para 26
141. the Fogarty case (n 82) para 28.
142. Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) para 53
143. following Waite and Kennedy v Germany, Judgment of 18 Feb 1999
144. 9) 30 EHRR 261 - immunity granted to an international organization (the European Space Agency).
145. See also NCF and AG v Italy (1995) 111 ILR 153, European Commission on Human Rights.
146. Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) para 54.
147. See also the McElhinney case (n 82) para 35
148. the Fogarty case (n 82) para 34.
149. Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) paras 56-7.
150. See also the McElhinney case (n 82) paras 36-7
151. the Fogarty case (n 82) paras 35-6
152. Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573, 1578-9 (per Lord Hope), 1581 (per Lord Clyde), HL.
153. 6] UKHL 26.
154. This was a conjoined appeal with Mitchell v Al-Dali. The first action was brought by Jones against the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia and an individual who was a servant or agent of the Kingdom. The second action was brought by Mitchell and two others against four individual defendants. See also Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank [2005] EVVHC 2944 (QB),
155. 6] 1 Lloyd's Rep 636
156. Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co [2005] EWCA Civ 1116, [49],
157. 6] 2 WLR 70, CA.
158. 4] EWCA Civ 1394,
159. 5] QB 699.
160. Distinguished in Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co [2005] EWCA Civ 1116 at [49],
161. 6] 2 WLR 70, CA.
162. It also followed the Court of Appeal in Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait (No 2) (1996) 107 ILR 536, CA.
163. (n 88) [87]-[89] referring to: Soering v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No 161
164. 9) 11 EHRR 439
165. Ireland v United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 Jan 1978, Series A No 25
166. 8) 2 EHRR 25
167. Artico v Italy, Judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A No 37
168. 0) 3 EHRR 1
169. Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark, Judgment of 7 Dec 1976, Series No 23
170. 9-80) 1 EHRR 711. The Court of Appeal also referred at [91] to what s 3 of the 1998 Act requires.
171. (n 88) [44]-[46] referring to the UN Torture Convention 1984.
172. (n 88) [92].
173. ibid. In this he was going further than the majority of the ECtHR was prepared to go in Al-Adsani.
174. 6] UKHL 26, [29] (per Lord Bingham), [36] (per Lord Hoffmann). Lords Rodger [103], Walker [104] and Carswell [105] concurred with these two judgments.
175. ibid [18] (per Lord Bingham), [40] (per Lord Hoffmann).
176. ibid [101-[131 (per Lord Bingham), [66] (per Lord Hoffmann).
177. ibid [13] (per Lord Bingham).
178. See also Lord Hoffmann [66].
179. Approving the obiter dicta of Lord Millett in Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573. 1588.
180. Compare Mance LJ in the Court of Appeal in the Jones case (n 37) [82].
181. 6] UKHL 26, [14] (per Lord Bingham), [64] (per Lord Hoffmann).
182. ibid [14] (per Lord Bingham).
183. It was common ground that this was so, see [13] (per Lord Bingham).
184. ibid [17] (per Lord Bingham).
185. 6] UKHL 26, [19], [27] (per Lord Bingham), [85] (per Lord Hoffmann).
186. Their Lordships looked at, inter alia, the UN Torture Convention 1984, the UN State Immunity Convention 2004, the decision of the ECtHR in the Al-Adsani case and Democratic Republic of the Congo v Belgium (Case concerning arrest warrant of 11 April 2000) [2002] ICJ Rep 3.
187. (n 103) [401-[64] (per Lord Hoffmann), [24]-[28] (per Lord Bingham).
188. See also the much easier case of Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank [2005]EWHC 2944 (QB),
189. 6] 1 Lloyd's Rep 636 - immunity granted to employees of the Dutch Central Bank not disproportionate where an effective remedy in the Netherlands and gravity of allegations against defendants much less than in Jones.
190. 4] EWCA Civ 168,
191. 5] Fam 267, CA;
192. affd [2005] UKHL 42,
193. 6] 1 AC 98.
194. See the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, s 5(2).
195. She was guilty of a criminal offence under the Immigration Act 1971.
196. 4] EWCA Civ 168, [40],
197. 5] Fam 267, CA.
198. Counsel had referred to leading cases on access including Airey (n 3),
199. and Golder (n 3).
200. 3] 2 AC 309.
201. (n 109) [38].
202. It was also held that there was no rule of public policy preventing a person who was unlawfully resident in the country acquiring a domicile of choice.
203. See also Latham LJ [88]. The absence of an exclusionary rule meant that he did not have to deal with the Art 6 point.
204. He referred to the Golder case (n 3)
205. and Airey case (n 3).
206. 5] UKHL 42,
207. 6] 1 AC 98.
208. With whom Lords Nicholls, Hoffmann, Hope, and Phillips concurred.
209. (n 116) [31].
210. domicle of choice in England could also be acquired even though a person was not lawfully in the country.
211. See PM North and JJ Fawcett, Cheshire and North's Private International Law (13th edn, Butterworths, London, 1999) 434 et seq.
212. Specialist International Group v Deakin [2001] EWCA Civ 777 (unreported, 23 May 2001).
213. ibid [10] (per Aldous LJ).
214. Air Foyle Ltd v Center Capital Ltd [2002] EWHC 2535 (Comm),
215. 3] 2 Lloyd's Rep 753.
216. Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] AC 853, 947 (per Lord Upjohn).
217. 4] EWCA Civ 857.
218. ibid [45].
219. ibid.
220. 4] UKHL 37,
221. 4]3 WLR 2241.
222. Section 97(1)(c) Criminal Justice Act 1988.
223. (n 128) [27]
224. criticized by Briggs, in a case note (2004) 75 BYBIL 537.
225. Judgment of 20 July 2001
226. 1) 35 EHRR 44.
227. See the case notes by Hartley (2004) 120 LQR 211
228. Briggs (2003) 74 BYBIL 553.
229. The Concordat requires that the Italian courts verify that in the proceedings before the ecclesiastical courts the right to sue and defend in court has been assured to the parties in a way not dissimilar from what is required by the fundamental principles of the Italian legal system. Art 6 of the Convention has been enacted into the Italian legal order.
230. SLT 1365, Outer House of the Court of Session.
231. See Kuwait Airways Corpn v Iraqi Airways Co (Nos 4 and 5) [2002] UKHL 19, [18] (per Lord Nicholls), [114] (per Lord Steyn), [125] (per Lord Hoffmann) [137] and [149] (per Lord Hope), [171] (per Lord Scott),
232. 2] AC 883.
233. See also Oppenheimer v Cattermote [1976] AC 249, 278 (per Lord Cross), 283 (per Lord Salmon), HL.
234. Art 6 is not concerned with the substantive content of national law, see Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4,
235. 3] 1 AC 1163.
236. eg a case of racially discriminatory confiscation of an individual's property would raise Art 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property).
237. Pordea v Times Newspapers Ltd [2000] I L Pr 763.
238. Cf Re Enforcement of a Guarantee (Case IX ZB 2/98) [2001] IL Pr 29, Bundesgerichtshof - for the purposes of the public policy defence the only question that arises is whether enforcement of the judgment constitutes an infringement of the defendant's fundamental rights.
239. Case C-7/98 [2001] QB 709,
240. 0] ECR I-1935
241. followed in Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 33, discussed below.
242. ibid para 25.
243. Poitrintol v France, Judgment of 23 Nov 1993, Series A No 277-A;
244. 4) 18 EHRR 130
245. Pelladoah v Netherlands, Judgment 22 Sept 1994, Series A No 297-B;
246. 4) 19 EHRR 81
247. Van Geyseghem v Belgiwn, Judgment of 21 Jan 1999.
248. See also Motorola Credit Corp v Uzan [2003] EWCA Civ 752, [54]-[58],
249. 4] 1 WLR 113, CA.
250. AG Saggio, Krombach v Bamberski (n 139) [28].
251. SLT 1365, Outer House of the Court of Session.
252. Lord Mackay looked at evidence from documents showing official concern from the Government and National Assembly in France that commercial courts needed reform
253. Aksoy v Turkey Judgment of 18 Dec 1996
254. 7) 23 EHRR 553
255. Adolfv Austria, Series A No 49
256. 2) 4 EHRR 313
257. Bulut v Austria (17358/90) (1996) 24 EHRR 84
258. De Cubber v Belgium, Judgment of 26 Oct 1984, Series A No 86
259. 4) 7 EHRR 236
260. Edwards United Kingdom, Judgment of 16 Dec 1992, Series A No 247-B;
261. 3) 15 EHRR 417.
262. See also Orams v Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB) for a good technique but no rights under Art 6 vested in the defendants.
263. Stolzenberg v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc [2005] IL Pr 24.
264. See also Klempka v ISA Daisytek SAS [2004] IL Pr 6, Cour d'Appel, Versailles.
265. 2] EWCA Civ 774,
266. 3] QB 620.
267. ibid [24],
268. quoting Case C-414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH v Boch [1994] ECR 1-2237, 2256, Para 20.
269. Konig v Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A No 27
270. 8) 2 EHRR 170
271. and Vermeulen v Belgium, Judgment of 20 Feb 1996
272. 6) 32 EHRR 313 were cited in argument.
273. See also, eg, Citibank NA v Rafidian Bank [2003] EWHC 1950, [44],
274. 3] IL Pr 49 - no evidence as to content of Art 6 as opposed to its applicability.
275. This does not appear to have been argued by counsel.
276. 5] IL Pr 3, a case under the Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings No 1346/2000.
277. The ECHR was only mentioned in so far as Krombach, which mentions this, was quoted.
278. Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 23.
279. ibid para 67.
280. ibid para 65,
281. citing: Case C-185/95 Baustahllgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR I-8417, paras 20 and 21
282. Joined Cases C-174/98 and C-189/98 Netherlands and Van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR I-1, para 17.
283. Re the Enforcement of a French Interlocutory Order (Case 9 W 69/97) [2001] IL Pr 17.
284. Case C-49/84 Debaecker v Bouwman [1985] ECR 1779, ECJ.
285. The Maronier case (n 147) [27].
286. See, eg, the Stolzenberg case (n 146). Public policy can also come into play in a case where there is no breach of Art 6, such as one of fraud.
287. 3] EWCA Civ 392, [2003] 1 WLR 1916; discussed above.
288. ibid [29].
289. 7] AC 460, 476 (per Lord Goff).
290. See generally on conflicts justice in this context, A Bell, 'Human Rights and Transnational Litigation - Interesting Points of Intersection' in S Bottomley and D Kinley (eds), Commercial Law and Human Rights (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002) 115.
291. However, Bingham MR in the Court of Appeal (Evans and Ward LJJ concurring) in Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc [1997] IL Pr 643, [30]-[31], CA, confirmed [1998] AC 854, HL, said that the interests of justice approach was consistent with the obligations under Art 6 of the ECHR, without citing decisions of the ECtHR on the absence of legal aid.
292. Riccardi Pizzati v Italy, Judgment of 10 Nov 2004
293. Bottazzi v Italy, Judgment of 28 July 1999
294. Salesi v Italy, Judgment of 26 Feb 1993, Series A No 257-E;
295. 8) 26 EHRR 187, para 24
296. Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy, Judgment of 27 Oct 1994, Series A no 293-B;
297. 4) 19 EHRR 368, para 61.
298. Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 Oct 1979, Series A, No 32
299. 9) 2 EHRR 305
300. McVicar v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 May 2002
301. Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, Judgment of 15 Feb 2005.
302. 0] 1 WLR 1545.
303. ibid 1561.
304. See also his comments in the Court of Appeal in Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc (n 164).
305. 3] EWCA Civ 392, [2003] 1 WLR 1916
306. affd [2004] UKHL 37, [2004] 3 WLR 2241.
307. ibid [28].
308. ibid.
309. 5] EWCA Civ 75, [2005] QB 946; discussed above.
310. Case C-7/98 [2001] QB 709
311. 0] ECR I-1935.
312. See also Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 23.
313. (n 173) para 25.
314. ibid paras 26 and 42.
315. See also Case C-341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL PR 23 [65].
316. See Hartley, 'The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws' (2005) 54 ICLQ 813, 813-21
317. and in 'Choice-of-court agreements, lis pendens, human rights and the realities of international business: Reflections on the Gasser case', in Le droit international prive: Esprit et methodes (Melanges en l'honneur de Paul Lagarde) (Dalloz, Paris, 2005) 383.
318. Case C-116/02 [2005] QB 1, [2003] ECR I-4693
319. criticized by Hartley (n 176)
320. Mance (2004) 120 LQR 357
321. Fentiman [2004] CLJ 312. It has also been seen, above, that the human rights argument was put in an unattractively unfocused way.
322. The Gasser case (n 177) [70].
323. See also [68].
324. ibid [71]-[72].
325. 2] EWCA Civ 774, [2003] QB 620.
326. ibid [24]-[25].
327. Lord Bingham saw the case as involving a clash between two international law principles, [2006] UKHL 26, [1].
328. cf Mance LJ [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, [92], [2005] QB 699.
329. The minority stressed the overriding effect of the jus cogens rule prohibiting torture.
330. Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 Nov 2001
331. 1) 34 EHRR 273, [54].
332. ibid [56].
333. Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) (n 7).
334. ibid [29].
335. (n 177) [69]. However, the ECtHR considers that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing Convention rights falls on national authorities.
336. SA Marie Brizzard et Roger International v William Grant & Sons Ltd (No 2) 2002 SLT 1365, 1372.
337. 5] UKHL 42, [2006] 1 AC 98.
338. (n 88) [96].
339. Compare the approach of the House of Lords in that case, discussed above, where human rights were not treated as a separate ground for deciding the case from the international law ground (ie whether torture could or could not be treated as the exercise of a state function).
340. (n 88) [96].
341. (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8).
342. Re J (a child) (n 2).
343. (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5).
344. Counsel sometimes get human rights law wrong in the sense of raising implausible human rights arguments, such as where a State seeks to rely on the ECHR, which have been rightly rejected by the courts, see, eg, Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co [2005] EWCA Civ 1116, [49], [2006] 2 WLR 70, CA.
345. Judgment of 7 July 1989, Series A No 161
346. 9] 11 EHHR 439.
347. Judgment of 26 June 1992, Series A No 240
348. 2) 14 EHRR 745.
349. Judgment of 20 July 2001
350. 1) 35 EHRR 44.
351. In the section setting out 'The facts' there is a statement of 'Relevant Domestic Law' which sets out in brief the terms of the Concordat.
352. (n 200) [40].
353. Lord Carswell admitted that judge J-P Costa of the ECtHR, writing extra-judicially had taken a different and wider view of the effect of Pellegrini. See also for a wide view, Lord Mackay in Marie Brizzard (n 189)
354. Kinsch (n 31) 218-22
355. Briggs, in a case note (2004) 75 BYBIL 537
356. Hartley, in a case note (2004) 120 LQR 211 and the Dogauchi and Hartley Report accompanying the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements, Preliminary Draft Convention on Exclusive Choice of Court Agreements Draft Report, Prel Doc No 26 of Dec 2004, [145].
357. The Court of Appeal in Jomah v Attar [2004] EWCA Civ 417, [49]
358. reversed by the House of Lords in Re J (a child) (n 2), did not regard Pellegrini as being confined to its facts. The House of Lords did not discuss Pellegrini.
359. Judgment of 20 July 2004, para 21.
360. 4] EWCA Civ 857.
361. ibid [46].
362. Judge Matscher in his concurring opinion in Drozd (n 199)
363. Pellegrini (n 200) [40]
364. Soering (n 12) [88]-[91].
365. The court appears to be asking this question when permission is sought for enforcement of a worldwide freezing order abroad, Dadourian Group International Inc v Simms [2006] EWCA Civ 399, [43], [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 709.
366. It would be going further than merely taking account of, it would be following these decisions.
367. See P Kinsch (n 31) 202.
368. (n 7).
369. Kinsch (n 31) 202.
370. See the Soering case (n 12) para 91
371. (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5),
372. (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8)
373. Re J (a child) (n 2).
374. It follows that even if the ECtHR were to decide that the indirect effect doctrine did not apply in the context of private international law, the private international law solution should still continue to operate.
375. See Banco Atlantico SA v British Bank of the Middle East [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 504, 509.
376. Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4,
377. 3] 1 AC 1163, [77] (per Lord Millett).
378. distinction has to be drawn between procedural and substantive limitations on access to court, see Roche v The United Kingdom, Judgment 19 Oct 2005
379. and Others v The United Kingdom, Judgment of 10 May 2001
380. 2) 34 EHRR 97. The distinction between substance and procedure is well known to private international lawyers and its use in that context was referred to in the Matthews case.
381. Matthews v Ministry of Defence (n 215) [79] (per Lord Millett).
382. See, eg, Skrine & Co v Euromoney Publications Plc [2002] EMLR 15.
383. See also Recherches internationales Quebec v Cambior Inc 1998 Carswell Que 4511, [72], Cour Superieure du Quebec.
384. 8] AC 854, HL.
385. 0] 1 WLR 1545, HL.
386. 8] AC 854, 873, HL.
387. See also the Lubbe case (n 219) 1554.
388. The Connelly case (n 218) 873-4.
389. It might have been different if it had been possible to put on a rudimentary presentation abroad and the plaintiff sought to put on a Rolls-Royce presentation in England, ibid 874.
390. Lord Hoffmann dissented on this point.
391. 0] 1 WLR 1545, HL.
392. ibid 1559.
393. Judgment of 9 Oct 1979, Series A, No 32
394. 9) 2 EHRR 305.
395. ibid [26].
396. The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep 558, 560 (delay in India).
397. The delays in India are now less so as not to amount to a substantial injustice, see RHSP v EIH [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 249, 253-4
398. and the following forum conveniens cases: Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, [175]-[177]
399. Chellaram v Chellaram (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [177],
400. 2] 3 All ER 17.
401. Marconi v PT Pan Indonesia Bank Ltd TBK [2004] EWHC 129 (Comm), [38],
402. 4] 1 Lloyd's Rep 594
403. affd [2005] EWCA Civ 422, [77],
404. 5] 2 All ER (Comm) 325 (a forum conveniens case).
405. Konig v Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 28 June 1978, Series A No 27 (1978) 2 EHRR 170 - after 10 years the court had still not given a decision on the merits.
406. Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20.
407. See also Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 196, 205 (unspecific delay in Kenya).
408. Chellaram v Chellaram (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [177],
409. 2] 3 All ER 17 - an expedited hearing was a possibility because of the age of some of the parties. This was a forum conveniens case.
410. Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, [175]-[177] (a forum conveniens case).
411. Judgment of 26 Feb 1993, Series A, No 257-E;
412. 8) 26 EHRR 187.
413. ibid [22].
414. ibid [24].
415. cf Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy, Judgment of 27 Oct 1994, Series A, No 293-B;
416. 4) 19 EHRR 368, para 61 - eight years not excessive delay in a case involving complex law and facts and important repercussions on Italian law.
417. The Salesi case (n 68) [24].
418. See also the examination of abnormal periods during the whole length of the proceedings in the Katte Klitsche case (n 235).
419. The Salesi case (n 68) [23].
420. In Recherches internationales Quebec v Cambior Inc 1998 Carswell Que 4511, [72], Cour Superieure du Quebec it was accepted obiter that this period of delay would involve a violation of the victims' human rights and a denial of justice.
421. RHSP v EIH [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 249, 253-4
422. and the following forum conveniens cases: Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, [175]-[177]
423. Chellaram v Chellaram (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [177],
424. 2] 3 All ER 17.
425. Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20, [16] - the judge, Jonathan Sumption QC, accepted that delay may be so great as to constitute a breach of Art 6(1) but did not address the question of whether in this case this was so.
426. See more generally the Dogauchi and Hartley Report (n 203) [145].
427. See Judge Matscher in the Drozd case (n 199).
428. In the matter of Eurofoods IFSC Ltd [2005] IL Pr 3, Irish Supreme Court; discussed above.
429. See, eg, Citibank NA v Rafidian Bank [2003] EWHC 1950, [44] - no evidence as to content of Art 6 as opposed to its applicability,
430. 3] IL Pr 49.
431. This case was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeal in Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857.
432. This is the solution suggested under the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements, see the Dogauchi and Hartley Report (n 203) [145].
433. See Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857.
434. public policy defence (Art 9(e)) was introduced into the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on choice of court agreements so that Contracting States are not obliged to do something that they are not able to do, see the Dogauchi and Hartley Report (n 203) [145].
435. 8) 138 LT 386 - a case decided before the introduction of the Brussels regime.
436. See also Society of Lloyd's v Saunders (2001) 210 DLR (4th) 519, Ont CA.
437. Findlay v United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 Feb 1997
438. 7) 24 EHRR 221, [73].
439. See also McGonnell v the United Kingdom, Judgment of 8 Feb 2000
440. ECHR 2000-II; Pabla Ky v Finland, Judgment of 22 June 2004.
441. Pabla Ky v Finland (n 250).
442. There is no objection per se to expert Members participating in the decision-making process: Ettl v Austria, Judgment of 23 Apr 1987, Series A No 117, (1988) 10 EHRR 255
443. Debled v Belgium, Judgment of 22 Sept 1994, Series A No 292-B.
444. Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, [96], [2005] QB 699; overuled in part [2006] UKHL 26.
445. Artico v Italy (n 90) para 33.