Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-dsjbd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-30T15:11:22.600Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Impact of Article 6(1) of the Echr on Private International Law

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 January 2008

JJ Fawcett
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

An increasing trend in private international law cases decided by courts in the United Kingdom has been to refer to the European Convention on Human Rights and, in particular, to Article 6. This article will examine the impact of this provision on private international law. The article will go on to examine why the impact has been so limited and will put forward a new approach that takes human rights more seriously, using human rights law to identify problems and the flexibility inherent in private international law concepts to solve them.

Type
Research Article
Information
International & Comparative Law Quarterly , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , January 2007 , pp. 1 - 48
Copyright
Copyright © British Institute of International and Comparative Law 2007

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 J v C [1970] AC 668, HLGoogle Scholar; Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 278 (per Lord Cross), 283 (per Lord Salmon), HLGoogle Scholar; Williams & Humbert Ltd v W & H Trade Marks (Jersey) Ltd [1986] AC 368, 428 (per Lord Templeman)Google Scholar; The Playa Larga [1983] 2 Lloyd's Rep 171, 190, CAGoogle Scholar; Settebello Ltd v Banco Toto and Acores [1985] 1 WLR 1050, 1056, CA.Google Scholar See generally Bell, A, ‘Human Rights and Transnational Litigation-Interesting Points of Intersection’’ in Bottomley, S and Kinley, D (eds), Commercial Law and Human Rights (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002) 115.Google Scholar 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 575Google Scholar, HC of Australia; for Canada see Recherches Internationales Quebec v Cambior Inc 1998 CarswellQue 4511, [72], Cour Superieure du Quebec.

2 See in relation to Art 8 (right to respect for private and family life) J v C [1970] AC 668, HLGoogle Scholar; Re J (a child) (return to foreign jurisdiction: convention rights) [2005] UKHL 40Google Scholar, [2005] 3 WLR 14Google Scholar; Re I (Minors) 23 April 1999 unreported, CA; Art 10 (right to freedom of expression) Skrine & Co v Euromoney Publications Plc [2002] EMLR 15Google Scholar; Prudential Assurance Co Ltd v Prudential Insurance Co of America (No 2) [2003] EWCA Civ 1154Google Scholar, [2004] ETMR 29Google Scholar; Art 12 (right to marry) Wilkinson v Kitzinger (Same-sex Marriage) The Times 21 Aug 2006; 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]Google Scholar, [2001] 2 All ER (Comm) 601Google Scholar; Orams v Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB)Google Scholar; Carruthers, , The Transfer of Property in the Conflict of Laws (OUP, Oxford, 2005) paras 8.71–8.76.Google ScholarSee also Emin v Yeldag [2002] 1 FLR 956.Google Scholar

3 Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 10 1979, Series A, No 32Google Scholar; (1979) 2 EHRR 305Google Scholar; Golder v UK, Judgment of 21 02 1975, Series A, No 18Google Scholar; (1975) 1 EHRR 524Google Scholar; Osman v United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 10 1998Google Scholar; (2000) 29 EHRR 245.Google Scholar 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. For the provision of the means of execution of a judgment and Art 6 see: Immobiliare Saffi v Italy, Judgment of 28 07 1999Google Scholar; Orams v Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB).Google Scholar

4 Ashingdane v United Kingdom, Judgment of 28 05 1985, Series A, No 93, para 57Google Scholar; (1985) 7 EHRR 528Google Scholar; Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, Judgment of 15 02 2005, para 62.Google Scholar

5 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 26, [7]Google Scholar, [2004] 3 WLR 23.Google Scholar

6 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 09 1993Google Scholar, Series A No 274–A; (1994) 18 EHRR 213.Google Scholar

7 The Ullah Case (n 5) [7]. See also Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) [2004] UKHL 37, [15]Google Scholar, [2004] 1 WLR 2241.Google Scholar

8 R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator [2004] UKHL 27, [41] (per Baroness Hale)Google Scholar, [2004] 3 WLR 58.Google ScholarSee also Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) (n 7) [15].Google Scholar

9 R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8) [42].Google Scholar

10 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5) [9]Google Scholar; R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8) [41].Google Scholar

11 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5) [9].Google Scholar

12 ibid [42]. Quaere whether this accurately reflects the position in Soering v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 07 1989, Series A No 161Google Scholar; [1989] 11 EHHR 439.Google Scholar

13 R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8) [42].Google Scholar

14 Judgment of 26 06 1992, Series A No 240Google Scholar; (1992) 14 EHRR 745, 749.Google Scholar

15 Prohibition of torture.

16 Judgment of 7 07 1989, Series A No 161Google Scholar; [1989] 11 EHHR 439.Google Scholar

17 See Einhorn v France, Decision of 16 10 2001Google Scholar; Reports of Judgments and Decisions 2001–XI, p 275Google Scholar; Tomic v United Kingdom, Decision of 14 10 2003Google Scholar; Bankovic v Belgium, Decision of 12 12 2001Google Scholar; (2001) 11 BHRC 435.Google ScholarSee also MAR v United Kingdom (1996) 23 EHRR CD 120Google Scholar; Dehwari v Netherlands, Decision of 12 03 1998Google Scholar; (2000) 29 EHRR CD 120. For an English analysis of the case-law see R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5).Google Scholar

18 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5); followed in R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8). See also Re J (a child) (return to foreign jurisdiction: convention rights) [2005] UKHL 40Google Scholar, [2006] 1 AC 80.Google Scholar

19 The Soering case (n 12) para 113; Judge Matscher in Drozd. Art 3 does not require this.

20 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5); followed in R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8).

21 Re J (a child) (n 2) [42]; following the Ullah case.Google Scholar

22 Right to respect for private and family life.

23 Re J (a child) (n 2). On the facts there was no such risk.

24 Kudla v Poland, Judgment of 26 10 2000.Google Scholar

25 The International Law Association call this referral; see the 2000 Leuven/London Principles on Declining and Referring Jurisdiction in Civil and Commercial Matters.

26 Re J (a child) (n 2), involved transferring a child abroad.

27 In Canada, denial of access leading to transfer abroad to a State where there was a reason able 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.Google Scholar

28 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.Google Scholar

29 Judgment of 20 07 2001Google Scholar; (2001) 35 EHRR 44.Google Scholar

30 Making the point that the Vatican has not ratified the ECHR.

31 See Kinsch, P, ‘The Impact of Human Rights on the Application of Foreigh Law and on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments’ in Einhorn, T and Siehr, K (eds), International Co-operation Through Private International Law- Essays in Memory of Peter Nygh (TMC Asser Press, The Hague, 2004 197, 218–22Google Scholar; Hartley, , in a case note (2004) 120 LQR 211.Google Scholar See also Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) (n 7); discussed below. 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 them selves … that the applicant had had a fair trial in the proceedings under canon law’. The House of Lords did not discuss this point.Google Scholar

32 Pellegrini (n 29) [40].Google Scholar

33 Kinsch, P (n 31) 227–8.Google Scholar

34 With the exception of Art 13.

35 Or decision, declaration or advisory opinion of that Court.

36 Section 2(1).

37 R (Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions [2001] UKHL 23, [26]Google Scholar, [2003] 2 AC 295Google Scholar; Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2006] UKHL 26, [18].Google Scholar

38 Section 3(1).

39 Section 6(1). This is subject to s 6(2), which sets out circumstances where para (1) does not apply.

40 [2004] EWCA Civ 168Google Scholar, [2005] Fam 267, CA.Google Scholar

41 ibid [40].

42 [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76.Google Scholar

43 ibid [42].

44 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.

45 [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch), appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390—by then it was not in dispute that the English courts had jurisdiction.

46 [2005] EWCA Civ 75, [2005] QB 946.

47 ibid [71].

48 ibid [70].

49 See Spiliada Maritime Corpn v Cansulex Ltd [1987] AC 470.Google Scholar

50 Kroch v Rossell [1937] 1 All ER 725Google Scholar, CA; referred to in Dow Jones v Jameel (n 46) [50].Google Scholar

51 Case C–281/02 [2005] QB 801, para 270.Google Scholar

52 [2000] 1 WLR 1545.

53 [1987] AC 460.

54 ibid 1561.

55 See, eg, AG of Zambia v Meer Care and Desai (A firm) [2005] EWHC 2102 (Ch)Google Scholar, appeals dismissed [2006] EWCA Civ 390, discussed above.Google Scholar

56 See the discussion below.

57 The Act was not yet in force when Lubbe was decided.

58 Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 Oct 1979, Series A, No 32Google Scholar; (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.

59 [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76.

60 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 863Google Scholar, [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.

61 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] appeals dismissed without discussion of this point, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 509, CA.

62 The Kribi (n 42) [42].

63 Midland Bank plc v Laker Airways Ltd [1986] QB 689, CA.Google Scholar

64 [2001] 1 Lloyd's Rep 76, [41].

65 [2004] EWCA Civ 857.

66 ibid [46].

67 Case C–116/02 [2005] QB 1, [2003] ECR-I 4693.

68 Riccardi Pizzati v Italy (App 62361/00), Judgment of 10 11 2004Google Scholar; Bottazzi v Italy (App 34884/97), Judgment of 28 07 1999Google Scholar; Salesi v Italy, Judgment of 26 Feb 1993, Series A No 257–E; (1998) 26 EHRR 187, para 24; Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy, Judgment of 27 10 1994, Series A no 293–BGoogle Scholar; (1994) 19 EHRR 368, para 61. The Bottazzi case, ibid, pointed out that since Capuano v Italy (Series A no 119) it had delivered 65 such judgments.

69 The Bottazzi case (n 68) points out that there are more than 1,400 such reports.

70 AG Leger, para 88.

71 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.

72 Case C–260/89 ERT v DEP [1991] ECR 1–2925, para 41.Google Scholar

73 ibid.

74 See the numerous cases cited by the ECtHR in Bosphorus Hava Yollari Turizm Ve Ticaret Anonim Sirketi v Ireland, Judgment of 30 06 2005, para 73.Google Scholar

75 Case C–185/95 Baustahllgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR 1–8417, paras 20 and 21; Joined Cases C–174/98 and C–189/98 Netherlands and Van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR 1–1, para 17; Case C–135/92 Fiskano v Commission [1994] ECR 1–2885, para 39Google Scholar; Case C–32/95 Commission v Lisrestal [1996] ECR 1–5373, para 21.Google Scholar

76 See the Bosphorus case (n 74) paras 77–84.Google Scholar

77 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.’

78 The Bosphorus case (n 74) para 165.

79 Case C–7/98 [2001] QB 709, paras 26 and 42; [2000] ECR 1–1935; 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.

80 The Gasser case (n 177) [70]. See also [68]. See further in the discussion below.

81 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.Google Scholar

82 Judgment of 21 Nov 2001; (2001) 34 EHRR 273. See also to the same effect on State immunity and human rights: McElhinney v Ireland, Judgment of 21 11 2001Google Scholar; [2002] 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; Fogarty v United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 Nov 2001; [2002] 34 EHRR 12—civil claim for discrimination brought in England against the US government by an applicant for re-employment at the US embassy. See also App No 50021/00, Kalogeropoulou v Greece and Germany, 12 Dec 2002.Google Scholar

83 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) para 52; the McElhinney case (n 82) para 26; the Fogarty case (n 82) para 28.

84 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) para 53; following Waite and Kennedy v Germany, Judgment of 18 Feb 1999Google Scholar; (1999) 30 EHRR 261—immunity granted to an international organization (the European Space Agency). See also NCF and AG v Italy (1995) 111 ILR 153, European Commission on Human Rights.

85 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) para 54. See also the McElhinney case (n 82) para 35; the Fogarty case (n 82) para 34.

86 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom (n 82) paras 56–7. See also the McElhinney case (n 82) paras 36–7; the Fogarty case (n 82) paras 35–6; Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573, 1578–9 (per Lord Hope), 1581 (per Lord Clyde), HL.Google Scholar

87 [2006] UKHL 26. 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] EWHC 2944 (QB)Google Scholar, [2006] 1 Lloyd's Rep 636; Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co [2005] EWCA Civ 1116, [49]Google Scholar, [2006] 2 WLR 70, CA.

88 [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, [2005] QB 699. Distinguished in Republic of Ecuador v Occidental Exploration and Production Co [2005] EWCA Civ 1116 at [49], [2006] 2 WLR 70, CA.

89 It also followed the Court of Appeal in Al-Adsani v Government of Kuwait (No 2) (1996) 107 ILR 536, CA.Google Scholar

90 (n 88) [87]–[89] referring to: Soering v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 Jul 1989, Series A No 161; (1989) 11 EHRR 439; Ireland v United Kingdom, Judgment of 18 Jan 1978, Series A No 25Google Scholar; (1978) 2 EHRR 25; Artico v Italy, Judgment of 13 May 1980, Series A No 37Google Scholar; (1980) 3 EHRR 1Google Scholar; Kjeldsen, Busk Madsen and Pedersen v Denmark, Judgment of 7 12 1976, Series No 23Google Scholar; (1979–1980) 1 EHRR 711. The Court of Appeal also referred at [91] to what s 3 of the 1998 Act requires.Google Scholar

91 (n 88)[44]–[46] referring to the UN Torture Convention 1984.

92 (n 88) [92].

93 ibid. In this he was going further than the majority of the ECtHR was prepared to go in Al-Adsani.

94 [2006] UKHL 26, [29] (per Lord Bingham), [36] (per Lord Hoffmann). Lords Rodger [103], Walker [104] and Carswell [105] concurred with these two judgments.Google Scholar

95 ibid [18] (per Lord Bingham), [40] (per Lord Hoffmann).

96 ibid [10]–[13] (per Lord Bingham), [66] (per Lord Hoffmann).

97 ibid [13] (per Lord Bingham). See also Lord Hoffmann [66].Google Scholar

98 Approving the obiter dicta of Lord Millett in Holland v Lampen-Wolfe [2000] 1 WLR 1573, 1588.Google ScholarCompare Mance LJ in the Court of Appeal in the Jones case (n 37) [82].Google Scholar

99 [2006] UKHL 26, [14] (per Lord Bingham), [64] (per Lord Hoffmann).Google Scholar

100 ibid [14] (per Lord Bingham).

101 It was common ground that this was so, see [13] (per Lord Bingham).

102 ibid [17] (per Lord Bingham).

103 [2006] UKHL 26, [19], [27] (per Lord Bingham), [85] (per Lord Hoffmann).Google Scholar

104 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 04 2000)Google Scholar[2002] ICJ Rep 3.Google Scholar

105 (n 103) [40]–[64] (per Lord Hoffmann)Google Scholar, [24]–[28] (per Lord Bingham).Google ScholarSee also the much easier case of Grovit v De Nederlandsche Bank [2005] EWHC 2944 (QB)Google Scholar, [2006] 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.Google Scholar

106 [2004] EWCA Civ 168Google Scholar, [2005] Fam 267, CAGoogle Scholar; affd [2005] UKHL 42Google Scholar, [2006] 1 AC 98.Google Scholar

107 See the Domicile and Matrimonial Proceedings Act 1973, s 5(2).

108 She was guilty of a criminal offence under the Immigration Act 1971.

109 [2004] EWCA Civ 168, [40]Google Scholar, [2005] Fam 267, CA.Google Scholar

110 Counsel had referred to leading cases on access including Airey (n 3), and Golder (n 3).

111 [1983] 2 AC 309.Google Scholar

112 (n 109) [38].Google Scholar

113 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.

114 See also Latham LJ [88]. The absence of an exclusionary rule meant that he did not have to deal with the Art 6 point.Google Scholar

115 He referred to the Golder case (n 3) and Airey case (n 3).

116 [2005] UKHL 42Google Scholar, [2006] 1 AC 98.Google Scholar

117 With whom Lords Nicholls, Hoffmann, Hope, and Phillips concurred.

118 (n 116) [31].Google Scholar

119 A domicle of choice in England could also be acquired even though a person was not lawfully in the country.

120 See North, PM and Fawcett, JJ, Cheshire and North's Private International Law (13th edn, Butterworths, London, 1999) 434 et seq.Google Scholar

121 Specialist International Group v Deakin [2001] EWCA Civ 777 (unreported, 23 May 2001).Google Scholar

122 ibid [10] (per Aldous LJ).

123 Air Foyle Ltd v Center Capital Ltd [2002] EWHC 2535 (Comm)Google Scholar, [2003] 2 Lloyd's Rep 753.Google Scholar

124 Carl Zeiss Stiftung v Rayner & Keeler Ltd (No 2) [1967] AC 853, 947 (per Lord Upjohn).Google Scholar

125 [2004] EWCA Civ 857.Google Scholar

126 ibid [45].

127 ibid.

128 [2004] UKHL 37Google Scholar, [2004] 3 WLR 2241.Google Scholar

129 Section 97(1)(c) Criminal Justice Act 1988.

130 (n 128) [27]Google Scholar; criticized by Briggs, in a case note (2004) 75 BYBIL 537.Google Scholar

131 Judgment of 20 07 2001Google Scholar; (2001) 35 EHRR 44.Google Scholar

132 See the case notes by Hartley (2004) 120 LQR 211Google Scholar; Briggs, (2003) 74 BYBIL 553.Google Scholar

133 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.

134 2002 SLT 1365, Outer House of the Court of Session.

135 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)Google Scholar, [2002] AC 883.Google ScholarSee also Oppenheimer v Cattermole [1976] AC 249, 278 (per Lord Cross), 283 (per Lord Salmon), HL.Google Scholar

136 Art 6 is not concerned with the substantive content of national law, see Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4Google Scholar, [2003] 1 AC 1163.Google Scholar

137 eg a case of racially discriminatory confiscation of an individual's property would raise Art 1 of the First Protocol (protection of property).

138 Pordea v Times Newspapers Ltd [2000] IL Pr 763.Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

139 Case C–7/98 [2001] QB 709Google Scholar, [2000] ECR 1–1935Google Scholar; followed in Case C–341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 33, discussed below.Google Scholar

140 ibid para 25.

141 Poitrimol v France, Judgment of 23 11 1993, Series A No 277–AGoogle Scholar; (1994) 18 EHRR 130Google Scholar; Pelladoah v Netherlands, Judgment 22 09 1994, Series A No 297–BGoogle Scholar; (1994) 19 EHRR 81Google Scholar; Van Geyseghem v Belgium, Judgment of 21 01 1999.Google ScholarSee also Motorola Credit Corp v Uzan [2003] EWCA Civ 752, [54–58]Google Scholar, [2004] 1 WLR 113, CA.Google Scholar

142 AG Saggio, Krombach v Bamberski (n 139) [28].Google Scholar

143 2002 SLT 1365, Outer House of the Court of Session.

144 Lord Mackay looked at evidence from documents showing official concern from the Government and National Assembly in France that commercial courts needed reform

145 Aksoy v Turkey Judgment of 18 12 1996Google Scholar; (1997) 23 EHRR 553Google Scholar; Adolf v Austria, Series A No 49; (1982) 4 EHRR 313Google Scholar; Bulut v Austria (17358/90) (1996) 24 EHRR 84Google Scholar; De Cubber v Belgium, Judgment of 26 10 1984, Series A No 86Google Scholar; (1984) 7 EHRR 236Google Scholar; Edwards United Kingdom, Judgment of 16 12 1992, Series A No 247–BGoogle Scholar; (1993) 15 EHRR 417.Google ScholarSee also Orams v Apostolides [2006] EWHC 2226 (QB) for a good technique but no rights under Art 6 vested in the defendants.Google Scholar

146 Stolzenberg v Daimler Chrysler Canada Inc [2005] IL Pr 24.Google ScholarSee also Klempka v ISA Daisytek SAS [2004] IL Pr 6, Cour d'Appel, Versailles.Google Scholar

147 [2002] EWCA Civ 774Google Scholar, [2003] QB 620.Google Scholar

148 ibid [24], quoting Case C–414/92 Solo Kleinmotoren GmbH v Boch [1994] ECR 1–2237, 2256, para 20.Google Scholar

149 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 28 06 1978, Series A No 27Google Scholar; (1978) 2 EHRR 170Google Scholar and Vermeulen v Belgium, Judgment of 20 02 1996Google Scholar; (1996) 32 EHRR 313 were cited in argument.Google ScholarSee also, eg, Citibank NA v Rafidian Bank [2003] EWHC 1950, [44]Google Scholar, [2003] IL Pr 49—no evidence as to content of Art 6 as opposed to its applicability.Google Scholar

150 This does not appear to have been argued by counsel.

151 [2005] IL Pr 3, a case under the Council Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings No 1346/2000.Google Scholar

152 The ECHR was only mentioned in so far as Krombach, which mentions this, was quoted.

153 Case C–341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 23.Google Scholar

154 ibid para 67.

155 ibid para 65, citing: Case C–185/95 Baustahllgewebe v Commission [1998] ECR 1–8417Google Scholar, paras 20 and 21; Joined Cases C–174/98 and C–189/98 Netherlands and Van der Wal v Commission [2000] ECR 1–1, para 17.Google Scholar

156 Re the Enforcement of a French Interlocutory Order (Case 9 W 69/97) [2001] IL Pr 17.Google Scholar

157 Case C–49/84 Debaecker v Bouwman [1985] ECR 1779, ECJ.Google Scholar

158 The Maronier case (n 147) [27].Google Scholar

159 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.

160 [2003] EWCA Civ 392Google Scholar, [2003] 1 WLR 1916; discussed above.Google Scholar

161 ibid [29].

162 [1987] AC 460, 476 (per Lord Goff).Google Scholar

163 See generally on conflicts justice in this context, Bell, A, ‘Human Rights and Transnational Litigation—Interesting Points of Intersection’ in Bottomley, S and Kinley, D (eds), Commercial Law and Human Rights (Ashgate, Aldershot, 2002) 115.Google Scholar

164 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]Google Scholar, 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.Google Scholar

165 Riccardi Pizzati v Italy, Judgment of 10 11 2004Google Scholar; Bottazzi v Italy, Judgment of 28 07 1999Google Scholar; Salesi v Italy, Judgment of 26 02 1993, Series A No 257–EGoogle Scholar; (1998) 26 EHRR 187, para 24Google Scholar; Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy, Judgment of 27 10 1994, Series A no 293–BGoogle Scholar; (1994) 19 EHRR 368, para 61.Google Scholar

166 Airey v Ireland, Judgment of 9 10 1979, Series A, No 32Google Scholar; (1979) 2 EHRR 305Google Scholar; McVicar v United Kingdom, Judgment of 7 05 2002Google Scholar; Steel and Morris v United Kingdom, Judgment of 15 02 2005.Google Scholar

167 [2000] 1 WLR 1545.Google Scholar

168 ibid 1561. See also his comments in the Court of Appeal in Connelly v RTZ Corporation plc (n 164).

169 [2003] EWCA Civ 392Google Scholar, [2003] 1 WLR 1916Google Scholar; affd [2004] UKHL 37Google Scholar, [2004] 3 WLR 2241.Google Scholar

170 ibid [28].

171 ibid.

172 [2005] EWCA Civ 75Google Scholar, [2005] QB 946; discussed above.Google Scholar

173 Case C–7/98 [2001] QB 709Google Scholar; [2000] ECR 1–1935.Google ScholarSee also Case C–341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL Pr 23.Google Scholar

174 (n 173) para 25.

175 ibid paras 26 and 42. See also Case C–341/04 Eurofood IFSC Ltd [2006] IL PR 23 [65].Google Scholar

176 See Hartley, , ‘The European Union and the Systematic Dismantling of the Common Law of Conflict of Laws’ (2005) 54 ICLQ 813, 813–21Google Scholar 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.Google Scholar

177 Case C–116/02 [2005] QB 1Google Scholar, [2003] ECR 1–4693Google Scholar; criticized by Hartley, (n 176); Mance (2004) 120 LQR 357Google Scholar; Fentiman, [2004] CLJ 312. It has also been seen, above, that the human rights argument was put in an unattractively unfocused way.Google Scholar

178 The Gasser case (n 177) [70].Google ScholarSee also [68].Google Scholar

179 ibid [71]–[72].

180 [2002] EWCA Civ 774Google Scholar, [2003] QB 620.Google Scholar

181 ibid [24]–[25].

182 Lord Bingham saw the case as involving a clash between two international law principles, [2006] UKHL 26, [1].Google Scholarcf Mance LJ [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, [92]Google Scholar, [2005] QB 699.Google Scholar

183 The minority stressed the overriding effect of the jus cogens rule prohibiting torture.

184 Al-Adsani v United Kingdom, Judgment of 21 11 2001Google Scholar; (2001) 34 EHRR 273, [54].Google Scholar

185 ibid [56].

186 Government of the United States of America v Montgomery (No 2) (n 7).

187 ibid [29].

188 (n 177) [69]. However, the ECtHR considers that the primary responsibility for guaranteeing Convention rights falls on national authorities.Google Scholar

189 SA Marie Brizzard et Roger International v William Grant & Sons Ltd (No 2) 2002 SLT 1365, 1372.

190 [2005] UKHL 42Google Scholar, [2006] 1 AC 98.Google Scholar

191 (n 88) [96].Google Scholar

192 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).

193 (n 88) [96].Google Scholar

194 R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8).

195 Re J (a child) (n 2).

196 R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5).

197 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]Google Scholar, [2006] 2 WLR 70, CA.Google Scholar

198 Judgment of 7 01 1989, Series A No 161Google Scholar; [1989] 11 EHHR 439.Google Scholar

199 Judgment of 26 06 1992, Series A No 240Google Scholar; (1992) 14 EHRR 745.Google Scholar

200 Judgment of 20 07 2001Google Scholar; (2001) 35 EHRR 44.Google Scholar

201 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.

202 (n 200) [40].Google Scholar

203 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); Kinsch, P (n 31) 218–22Google Scholar; Briggs, in a case note (2004) 75 BYBIL 537Google Scholar; Hartley, , in a case note (2004) 120 LQR 211Google Scholar 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 12 2004, [145].Google ScholarThe 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), did not regard Pellegrini as being confined to its facts. The House of Lords did not discuss Pellegrini.Google Scholar

204 Judgment of 20 07 2004, para 21.Google Scholar

205 [2004] EWCA Civ 857.Google Scholar

206 ibid [46].

207 Judge Matscher in his concurring opinion in Drozd (n 199); Pellegrini (n 200) [40]Google Scholar; Soering (n 12) [88]–[91].Google Scholar

207a 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]Google Scholar, [2006] 1 All ER (Comm) 709.Google Scholar

208 It would be going further than merely taking account of, it would be following these decisions.

209 See Kinsch, P (n 31) 202.Google Scholar

210 (n 7).

211 Kinsch, P (n 31) 202.Google Scholar

212 See the Soering case (n 12) para 91; R (Ullah) v Special Adjudicator (n 5), R (Razgar) v Special Adjudicator (n 8); Re J (a child) (n 2).

213 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.

214 See Banco Atlantico SA v British Bank of the Middle East [1990] 2 Lloyd's Rep 504, 509.Google Scholar

215 Matthews v Ministry of Defence [2003] UKHL 4Google Scholar, [2003] 1 AC 1163, [77] (per Lord Mfflett).Google Scholar A distinction has to be drawn between procedural and substantive limitations on access to court, see Roche v The United Kingdom, Judgment 19 10 2005Google Scholar; Z and Others v The United Kingdom, Judgment of 10 05 2001Google Scholar; (2002) 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.Google Scholar

216 Matthews v Ministry of Defence (n 215) [79] (per Lord Millett).Google Scholar

217 See, eg, Skrine & Co v Euromoney Publications Plc [2002] EMLR 15.Google ScholarSee also Recherches internationales Quebec v Cambior Inc 1998 Carswell Que 4511, [72], Cour Superieure du Quebec.Google Scholar

218 [1998] AC 854, HL.Google Scholar

219 [2000] 1 WLR 1545, HL.Google Scholar

220 [1998] AC 854, 873, HL. See also the Lubbe case (n 219) 1554.Google Scholar

221 The Connelly case (n 218) 873–4. 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.

222 Lord Hoffmann dissented on this point.

223 [2000] 1 WLR 1545, HL.Google Scholar

224 ibid 1559.

225 Judgment of 9 10 1979, Series A, No 32Google Scholar; (1979) 2 EHRR 305.Google Scholar

226 ibid [26].

227 The Vishva Ajay [1989] 2 Lloyd's Rep 558, 560 (delay in India). The delays in India are now less so as not to amount to a substantial injusticeGoogle Scholar, see RHSP v EIH [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 249, 253–4Google Scholar and the following forum conveniens cases: Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, [175]–[177]Google ScholarChellaram v Chellaram (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [177]Google Scholar, [2002] 3 All ER 17.Google Scholar

228 Marconi v PT Pan Indonesia Bank Ltd TBK [2004] EWHC 129 (Comm), [38]Google Scholar, [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 594Google Scholar; affd [2005] EWCA Civ 422, [77]Google Scholar, [2005] 2 All ER (Comm) 325(a forum conve-niens case).Google Scholar

229 Konig v Federal Republic of Germany, Judgment of 28 07 1978Google Scholar, Series A No 27 (1978) 2 EHRR 170—after 10 years the court had still not given a decision on the merits.Google Scholar

230 Ceskoslovenska Obchodni Banka AS v Nomura International Plc [2003] IL Pr 20.Google ScholarSee also Credit Agricole Indosuez v Unicof Ltd [2004] 1 Lloyd's Rep 196, 205 (unspecific delay in Kenya).Google Scholar

231 Chellaram v Chellaram (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [177]Google Scholar, [2002] 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.Google Scholar

232 Konamoneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, [175]–[177] (a forum conveniens case).Google Scholar

233 Judgment of 26 02 1993, Series A, No 257–EGoogle Scholar; (1998) 26 EHRR 187.Google Scholar

234 ibid [22].

235 ibid [24]. cf Katte Klitsche de la Grange v Italy, Judgment of 27 10 1994, Series A, No 293–BGoogle Scholar; (1994) 19 EHRR 368, para 61—eight years not excessive delay in a case involving complex law and facts and important repercussions on Italian law.

236 The Salesi case (n 68) [24]. See also the examination of abnormal periods during the whole length of the proceedings in the Katte Klitsche case (n 235).Google Scholar

237 The Salesi case (n 68) [23].Google Scholar

238 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.Google Scholar

239 RHSP v EIH [1999] 2 Lloyd's Rep 249, 253–4Google Scholar and the following forum conveniens cases: Konamaneni v Rolls-Royce Industrial Power (India) Ltd [2002] 1 WLR 1269, [175]–[177] Chellaram v Chellaram (No 2) [2002] EWHC 632 (Ch), [177], [2002] 3 All ER 17.

240 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.

241 See more generally the Dogauchi and Hartley Report (n 203) [145].Google Scholar

242 See Judge Matscher in the Drozd case (n 199).

243 In the matter of Eurofoods IFSC Ltd [2005] IL Pr 3, Irish Supreme Court; discussed above.

244 See, eg, Citibank NA v Rafidian Bank [2003] EWHC 1950, [44]—no evidence as to content of Art 6 as opposed to its applicability, [2003] IL Pr 49.

245 This case was quoted with approval by the Court of Appeal in Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857.Google Scholar

246 This is the solution suggested under the Hague Convention of 30 Jun 2005 on choice of court agreements, see the Dogauchi and Hartley Report (n 203) [145].

247 See Al-Bassam v Al-Bassam [2004] EWCA Civ 857.Google Scholar

248 A 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) [45].

249 (1928) 138 LT 386—a case decided before the introduction of the Brussels regime. See also Society of Lloyd's v Sounders (2001) 210 DLR (4th) 519, Ont CA.Google Scholar

250 Findlay v United Kingdom, Judgment of 25 02 1997Google Scholar; (1997) 24 EHRR 221, [73]. See also McGonnell v the United Kingdom, Judgment of 8 Feb 2000; ECHR 2000–IIGoogle Scholar; Pabla Ky v Finland, Judgment of 22 Jun 2004.Google Scholar

251 Pabla Ky v Finland (n 250). 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 117Google Scholar, (1988) 10 EHRR 255; Debled v Belgium, Judgment of 22 Sep 1994, Series A No 292–B.Google Scholar

252 Jones v Ministry of the Interior of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia [2004] EWCA Civ 1394, [96]Google Scholar, [2005] QB 699; overuled in part [2006] UKHL 26.

253 Artico v Italy (n 90) para 33.