Out-of-court justice in the European Enforcement Landscape – 1st EU Civil Justice Seminar
News
Research methods in Private International Law - launch events
Following the publication of the book Research Methods in International Private Law: A Handbook on Regulation, Research and Teaching (Elgar, 2024), edited by Xandra Kramer and Laura Carballo Piñeiro (see our earlier news item), two launch events were held.
The first webinar took place on 10 September 2024. After a brief introduction by the editors, eminent contributors to the book presented their views on methods of regulation, research and education in private international law. Topics addressed included recognition as a method, European law perspectives, the essence of comparative law, law & economics, and feminism in private international law. The webinar is co-organised by the University of Vigo. Speakers were Dulce Lopes (University of Coimbra), Adriani Dori (Erasmus University Rotterdam), Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (Sciences Po Law School Paris), Giesela Rühl (Humboldt University of Berlin), and Mary Keyes (Griffith University of Brisbane).
The second webinar took place on 23 September 2024. This webinar will zoomed in on the importance and methodology of education in private international law, addressing general educational aspects from the perspective of laymen and colonialism as well as teaching private international law in different jurisdictions, including The Netherlands and Nigeria. This webinar was co-organised by the University of Vigo, the American Society of International Law (ASIL) and hosted by the University of Sydney (moderated by Jeanne Huang). Speakers were Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (University of Edinburgh), Chukwuma Okoli (Birmingham Law School), Abubakri Yekini (University of Manchester), Ramani Garimella (South Asian University) and Aukje van Hoek (University of Amsterdam).
Published: June 8, 2021
On Thursday 6 May, our seminar series on ‘EU Civil Justice’ kicked off with a general introduction to the series by Xandra Kramer. The first two-hour seminar dealt with the role of out-of-court justice in the European enforcement landscape. Taking a holistic perspective, our invited speaker Fabrizio Cafaggi (Judge at the Italian Council of State, former professor at the EUI and the University of Trento) talked about the role of Article 47 EUCFR in shaping the interaction between different enforcement processes. Specifically, Cafaggi explained how Article 47 EUCFR has institutional implications for the balance between individual and collective redress and for the relationship between judicial and administrative enforcement as well as ADR. The Court of Justice of the European Union has played a key role in employing the fundamental right to an effective remedy to give shape to their complementarity. Reference points are the Court’s rulings in Cases C-73/16 - Puškár, C-317/08 - Alassini, C-75/16 - Menini and Rampanelli and C-381/14 - Sales Sinués. According to Cafaggi, the case-law shows that Article 47 generally favors choice between different processes. However, mandatory sequences that oblige to either exhaust administrative remedies or attempt ADR before accessing judicial remedies are not excluded as long as certain conditions are met. Betül Kas (post-doctoral researcher, Erasmus University Rotterdam) zoomed in on the relationship between ADR and court proceedings in collective disputes by discussing the highly contentious collective settlement in the Volkswagen litigation in Germany. Kas reconstructed the procedural and practical circumstances that lead the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband - vzbv) to settle outside the procedural scope of the German model case procedure (Musterfeststellungsklage). While this move withdrew the settlement from the safeguards installed within the procedure and any judicial oversight, it enhanced the choice of individual consumers, which could either accept Volkswagen’s settlement offer or pursue individual judicial proceedings benefitting from the suspension of the limitation period. The topic of collective settlements raises interesting questions about safeguarding Article 47 in opt-in/opt-out mechanisms and as to the degree of judicial involvement required in collective settlements. The discussion raised further interesting question of a principal nature, such as the meaning of ‘privatization’ and ‘effectiveness’ in EU civil justice.