Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Some Aspects of the Application and Ascertainment of Foreign Law in the Light of Article 6 of the ECHR

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Fundamental Rights in International and European Law

  • 1545 Accesses

Abstract

Private international law deals with cross-border civil matters and, inter alia, determines the applicable (substantive) law. When this law turns out to be the law of a foreign state, the question of the procedural status of that law will come up. Since foreign law is not known to the court, the latter should obtain information on that law, either of its own motion or by requiring party adduced proof. Thus, the applicability of a foreign law may lead to a number of complications in civil procedure that need to be taken into account. The question arises as to what extent the requirements of the ECHR, especially of Article 6(1) thereof, may have an impact on the way foreign law is applied. Since this provision has an impact on civil procedure as such, the applicability of a foreign law may give rise to a violation of Article 6(1) as well. In this paper, these potential violations of Article 6(1) will be explored by focusing on a selected group of issues that the application and ascertainment of foreign law might entail. The relevant case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) will be analysed and analogously applied in the context of the procedural treatment of foreign law.

The author is a Researcher and PhD candidate in private international law at the T.M.C. Asser Instituut in The Hague. He would like to thank Vesna Lazić for her valuable comments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 84.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    For example, because parties had chosen this law to apply, as is allowed by Article 3(1) of Regulation (EC) No. 593/2008 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (‘Rome I’).

  2. 2.

    See the review clause in (EC) No. 30(1)(i) of Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 July 2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), that requires a study to be undertaken to report on this problem. This study has been conducted by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/document/index_en.htm. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  3. 3.

    The Hague Conference on Private International Law initiated a ‘project on accessing the content of foreign law’, but this topic has recently been removed from the agenda of the Conference (as follows from the ‘Conclusions & Recommendation of the Council of General Affairs and Policy of the Conference (24–26 March 2015), No. 11). See Preliminary Documents 21 A–C (March 2007), 9 A–C (March 2008) and 11 A–C (March 2009), http://www.hcch.net under ‘Work in Progress’, ‘General Affairs’. Accessed 15 July 2015.

  4. 4.

    A comprehensive overview cannot be given, but see e.g. the recent works of De Boer 1996; Jänterä-Jareborg 2003; Geeroms 2004; Bogdan 2011, pp. 92–133; Trautmann 2011; Lalani 2012.

  5. 5.

    Except Kiestra, who touched upon the topic in his doctoral dissertation on the influence of the ECHR on private international law. See Kiestra 2014, pp. 187–193. More often, legal writing is more implicitly aware of the potential problems of the requirement of a fair trial. See, e.g., De Boer 1996, p. 324; Jessurun d’Oliveira 2008, p. 502; Bogdan 2011, p. 109.

  6. 6.

    Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, Judgment of 6 April 2004, No. 75116/01. See Kiestra 2014, pp. 188–189.

  7. 7.

    See for this distinction, e.g., van Dijk et al. 2006, pp. 557–623 and Harris et al. 2014, pp. 398–457.

  8. 8.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 557. ‘Access to justice’ is expressly laid down in the third paragraph of Article 47 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights, which reads as follows: ‘[…] Legal aid shall be made available to those who lack sufficient resources in so far as such is necessary to ensure effective access to justice’.

  9. 9.

    Golder v. The United Kingdom, No. 4451/70, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A No. 18, paras 34–36.

  10. 10.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 557.

  11. 11.

    Airey v. Ireland, Judgment of 9 October 1979, No. 6289/73, Series A 28, para 24. See also van Dijk et al. 2006, pp. 560–561; Harris et al. 2014, pp. 399–402; Rainey et al. 2014, p. 259.

  12. 12.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 569, referring to Neumeister v. Austria, Judgment of 7 May 1974, No. 1936/63, Series A 17, para 33 et seq.

  13. 13.

    Kiestra 2014, p. 41.

  14. 14.

    See van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 569 et seq.

  15. 15.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 573 et seq.

  16. 16.

    See Harris et al. 2014, pp. 409–433.

  17. 17.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 580.

  18. 18.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, pp. 589–591.

  19. 19.

    Dombo Beheer B.V. v. The Netherlands, 27 October 1993, para 33.

  20. 20.

    Trančíková v. Slovakia, Judgment of 13 January 2015, No. 17127/12, para 39, Ringier Axel Springer Slovaka A.S. v. Slovakia, 4 October 2011, No. 35090/07, paras 84–86.

  21. 21.

    Trančíková v. Slovakia, Judgment of 13 January 2015, No. 17127/12, para 39, Ringier Axel Springer Slovaka A.S. v. Slovakia, 4 October 2011, No. 35090/07, paras 84–86; Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia, 27 April 2010, No. 23083/05, para 26.

  22. 22.

    See, e.g., Ringier Axel Springer Slovaka A.S. v. Slovakia, 4 October 2011, No. 35090/07, para 90.

  23. 23.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, pp. 596–597; Harris 2014 et al. p. 433.

  24. 24.

    But even in civil matters the publicity requirement could be important, depending on what is at stake. See Van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 590.

  25. 25.

    See Harris 2014, p. 440.

  26. 26.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 605.

  27. 27.

    See König v. Germany, Judgment of 28 June 1978, No. 6232/73, Series A 27, para 99.

  28. 28.

    As mentioned by the Court in Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, para 43, ECHR 2000-VII. See also van Dijk et al. 2006, pp. 606–607; Harris et al. 2014, p. 440.

  29. 29.

    Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, 5 July 2007, No. 31930/04, para 41.

  30. 30.

    See, e.g., Geeroms 2004, p. 41 et seq.

  31. 31.

    See, e.g., Institut suisse de droit comparé 2011, p. 9.

  32. 32.

    Ibid., pp. 9–10.

  33. 33.

    Ibid., p. 31 et seq; Geeroms 2004, p. 91 et seq.

  34. 34.

    European Convention on Information on Foreign Law of 7 June 1968 (European Treaty Series, No. 62).

  35. 35.

    According to Article 2(2) of the convention States may also appoint a transmitting agency to which their authorities should send their request, which is then forwarded to the receiving agency of the Contracting State whose law should be ascertained.

  36. 36.

    Institut suisse de droit compare 2011, p. 38 et seq.; Geeroms 2004, p. 194 et seq.

  37. 37.

    See, e.g., De Boer 1996, p. 310 et seq.

  38. 38.

    Institut Suisse de droit compare 2011, p. 38; Geeroms 2004, p. 251 et seq.

  39. 39.

    The problem of foreign law at higher instances of the proceedings will not be dealt with in this paper.

  40. 40.

    See, e.g., Jänterä-Jareborg 2003, p. 264 et seq; Geeroms 2004, pp. 13, 38–39; 362 et seq., Bogdan 2011, pp. 93–94.

  41. 41.

    See, e.g., Lalani 2012, p. 9.

  42. 42.

    Esplugues et al. 2011, p. 16 et seq.

  43. 43.

    Lalani 2012, pp. 70–71; Bodgan 2011, pp. 93–94.

  44. 44.

    See, e.g., Sass 1981, p. 97.

  45. 45.

    See, e.g., Dicey et al. 2012, p. 318 et seq.

  46. 46.

    Though exceptions to this rule do exist. For English law, see, e.g., Dicey et al. 2012, pp. 329–332.

  47. 47.

    See, e.g., Dicey et al. 2012, p. 332.

  48. 48.

    See, e.g., Lalani 2012, pp. 10–12.

  49. 49.

    Like Article 15(2) of the Belgian Code of Private International Law (Wetboek van Internationaal Privaatrecht/Code de droit international privé) or Article 16(2) of the Swiss Federal Law on Private International Law (Bundesgesetz über das Internationale Privatrecht/Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé).

  50. 50.

    See De Boer 1996, pp. 307–315; Jänterä-Jareborg 2003, pp. 324–333. Dismissal is not always allowed. In Dutch legal writing, it is generally rejected as a solution. See Van Den Eeckhout 2011, p. 384.

  51. 51.

    According to Iglesias et al. 2011, pp. 356 and 358–359; Lalani 2012, pp. 65–66.

  52. 52.

    See, e.g., Institut Suisse de droit comparé 2011, pp. 13–14; Lalani 2012, pp. 77–78.

  53. 53.

    See, e.g., Jänterä-Jareborg 2003, pp. 265–271.

  54. 54.

    See Sect. 9.3.2.

  55. 55.

    For example, in the Netherlands the Supreme Court (Hoge Raad der Nederlanden) did so in its judgment in Ehlers & Loewenthal of 4 June 1915, in Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1915, p. 865. Nowadays this rule has been codified in Article 10:2 of the Dutch Civil Code, prescribing that rules of private international law and the law designated by those rules are to be applied ex officio.

  56. 56.

    See De Boer 1996, p. 337.

  57. 57.

    X & Co. v. The Federal Republic of Germany (dec.), No. 3147/67, CD 27, pp. 119–127. See also Lehmann v. The Federal Republic of Germany (dec.), No. 13957/88, 8 November 1988.

  58. 58.

    The Commission mentioned ‘Article 119 of the German Criminal Code’, but this is an obvious error since the matter at hand did not concern criminal law but private law.

  59. 59.

    Critical of this decision is F.A. Mann, who argued that the principle of iura novit curia does not exist in English civil procedure. See Mann 1977, pp. 369–370. See also Andrews 2013, p. 799, no. 29.56.

  60. 60.

    See Sect. 9.3.2.

  61. 61.

    See Sect. 9.3.2.

  62. 62.

    See De Boer 1996, p. 324, Jessurun d’Oliveira 2008, p. 502; Bogdan 2011, p. 109.

  63. 63.

    Andrejeva v. Latvia, No. 55707/00, Judgment of 18 February 2009, para 99.

  64. 64.

    Jessurun d’Oliveira 2008, p. 502.

  65. 65.

    Ibid.

  66. 66.

    Clinique des Acacias an others v. France, Judgment of14 October 2005, No. 65399/01, 65406/01, and 65407/01 (Judgment in French). See also Smits 2008, p. 103.

  67. 67.

    Smits 2008, p. 103.

  68. 68.

    Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia, 27 April 2010, No. 23083/05.

  69. 69.

    Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia A.S. v. Slovakia, 4 October 2011, No. 35090/07, paras 84–86.

  70. 70.

    See, e.g., Ruiz Torija v. Spain, 9 December 1994, No. 18390/91, Series A No. 303-A, para 29; Ringier Axel Springer Slovakia A.S. v. Slovakia, 4 October 2011, No. 35090/07, paras 84–86; Hudáková and Others v. Slovakia, 27 April 2010, No. 23083/05, para 95. See also van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 595.

  71. 71.

    van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 596.

  72. 72.

    Ibid., p. 595. See also Harris et al. 2014, p. 430.

  73. 73.

    For example, the Dutch Supreme Court may not review lower courts’ decisions on the basis of an incorrect application of the law of another state, according to Article 79(1)(b) of the Dutch Judicial Organisation Act. However, the Dutch Supreme Court may review lower courts’ decisions on foreign law insofar as the reasons the lower court gave were incomprehensible. This is a form of ‘indirect review’. See, e.g., Geeroms 2004, p. 353.

  74. 74.

    Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A No. 140, p. 29, para 46.

  75. 75.

    Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, No. 43803/98, para 31, 8 August 2006.

  76. 76.

    This is also reiterated in Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, Judgment of 5 July 2007, No. 31930/04, para 44.

  77. 77.

    Mantovanelli v. France, Judgment of 18 March 1997, No. 21497/93.

  78. 78.

    Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, No. 43803/98, para 31, 8 August 2006.

  79. 79.

    Ibid., para 32.

  80. 80.

    Jessurun d’Oliveira 2008, pp. 502–503, who believes that the Internet can play a useful role in finding information on foreign law, but asserts as well that this must comply with the requirements of a fair trial.

  81. 81.

    Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, No. 31930/04, Judgment of 5 July 2007, para 47. See also Placì v. Italy, No. 48754/11, Judgment of 21 January 2014, para 74.

  82. 82.

    Bönisch v. Austria, 6 May 1985 (Merits), Series A No. 92, paras 30–35.

  83. 83.

    For example, the court-appointed expert had the power to examine the ‘expert-witness’, but not vice versa.

  84. 84.

    The requirements inherent to ‘a fair hearing’ might not necessarily be the same for civil cases as for criminal cases. The reason for this seems to be the fact that there is no detailed provision for civil cases as there is for criminal cases in Article 6(2) and (3). See van Dijk et al. 2006, p. 579. Yet, general principles do exist and the requirement of ‘equality of arms’ in principle applies to civil cases as well, as can be derived from Dombo v. The Netherlands, 27 October 1993, No. 14448/88, paras 32–33.

  85. 85.

    Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, No. 31930/04, Judgment of 5 July 2007.

  86. 86.

    See, e.g., Pétur Thór Sigurðsson v. Iceland, No. 39731/98, § 37, ECHR 2003-IV; Wettstein v. Switzerland, No. 33958/96, § 42, ECHR 2000-XII. See also Sect. 9.2.

  87. 87.

    Eskelinen and Others v. Finland, no. 43803/98, § 31, 8 August 2006; Schenk v. Switzerland, judgment of 12 July 1988, Series A No. 140, p. 29, § 46.

  88. 88.

    See para 41 of the judgment.

  89. 89.

    Sara Lind Eggertsdóttir v. Iceland, No. 31930/04, Judgment of 5 July 2007, para 41.

  90. 90.

    Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, Judgment of 6 April 2004, No. 75116/01. See also Kiestra 2014, pp. 188–189.

  91. 91.

    See König v. Germany, Judgment of 28 June 1978, No. 6232/73, Series A 27, para 99.

  92. 92.

    As mentioned by the Court in Frydlender v. France [GC], No. 30979/96, para 43, ECHR 2000-VII. See also van Dijk et al. 2006, pp. 606–607 and Harris et al. 2014, p. 440.

  93. 93.

    International in the sense that they are governed by a foreign law. As mentioned in Sect. 9.1, issues of international jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement are excluded from the scope of this paper.

  94. 94.

    See De Boer 1996, p. 403, who compares a judge who applies foreign law to an amateur piano player who can never be as virtuous as a professional piano player.

  95. 95.

    Neumeister v. Austria, Series A 8 (1968), 1 EHRR 91.

  96. 96.

    Ibid., paras 20–21.

  97. 97.

    Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, Judgment of 6 April 2004, No. 75116/01.

  98. 98.

    See also Sect. 9.6 for the latter problem.

  99. 99.

    See, e.g., Jänterä-Jareborg 2003, p. 325 et seq.

  100. 100.

    See, e.g., De Boer 1996, p. 310 et seq.

  101. 101.

    Jänterä-Jareborg 2003, p. 327. Also Bogdan 2011, pp. 129–130, who seems to argue that both dismissal of the case as well as staying the proceedings until the content of the applicable law is finally established might lead to a denial to justice.

  102. 102.

    Golder v. The United Kingdom, No. 4451/70, judgment of 21 February 1975, Series A No. 18, paras 34–36.

  103. 103.

    A subsidiary applicable law can be applicable when a conflicts rule consists of multiple connecting factors. Strikwerda 2015, pp. 32–33, mentions Article 1 of the Hague Convention on the Conflicts of Laws Relating to the Form of Testamentary Dispositions of 5 October 1961 as an example.

  104. 104.

    For instance, French law when the law of Luxembourg cannot be established. See, e.g., de Boer 1996, p. 311, fn. 159.

  105. 105.

    Fentiman 1998, p. 183.

  106. 106.

    Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, Judgment of 6 April 2004, No. 75116/01, para 35.

  107. 107.

    Kinsch 2014, p. 540.

  108. 108.

    Ibid.

  109. 109.

    Ibid.

  110. 110.

    See for this matter, Kiestra 2014, pp. 180–187.

  111. 111.

    Karalyos and Huber v. Hungary and Greece, Judgment of 6 April 2004, No. 75116/01, para 35. See also para 4(2) of the Austrian Private International Law Act for the time element.

  112. 112.

    See Sect. 9.4.

References

  • Andrews N (2013) Andrews on civil processes. Volume I. Court proceedings. Intersentia, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Bogdan M (2011) Private international law as component of the law of the forum: general course on private international law. Recueil des Cours 348:9–252

    Google Scholar 

  • de Boer ThM (1996) Facultative choice of law: the procedural status of choice-of-law rules and foreign law. Recueil des Cours 257:223–427

    Google Scholar 

  • Dicey AV, Morris JHC, Collins LA (eds) (2012) Dicey Morris and Collins on the conflict of laws. Sweet & Maxwell, London

    Google Scholar 

  • Esplugues C, Iglesias JL, Palao G (2011) Application of foreign law. Sellier, Munich

    Google Scholar 

  • Fentiman R (1998) Foreign law in English courts—pleading, proof and choice of law. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Geeroms S (2004) Foreign law in civil litigation: a comparative and functional analysis. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Harris D, O’Boyle M, Bates E, Buckley C (2014) Law of the European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Iglesias JL, Esplugues C, Palao G, Espinosa R, Azcárraga C (2011) Spain. In: Esplugues C, Iglesias JL, Palao G (eds) Application of foreign law. Sellier, Munich, pp 355–375

    Google Scholar 

  • Institut suisse de droit compare (2011) The application of foreign law in civil matters in the EU member states and its perspectives for the future. JLS/2009/JCIV/PR/0005/E4. Part I. Legal analysis. http://ec.europa.eu/justice/civil/files/foreign_law_en.pdf. Accessed 15 July 2015

  • Jänterä-Jareborg M (2003) Foreign law in national courts: a comparative perspective. Recueil des Cours 304:181–385

    Google Scholar 

  • Jessurun d’Oliveira HU (2008) The non-election rule and procedural treatment of foreign law: some observations. Revue hellénique de droit international 61:499–520

    Google Scholar 

  • Kiestra LR (2014) The impact of the European Convention on Human Rights on Private International Law. TMC Asser Press, The Hague

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kinsch P (2014) Enforcement as a fundamental right. Nederlands Internationaal Privaatrecht 32:540–544

    Google Scholar 

  • Lalani S (2012) Doubt develops where certainty ceases: foreign law in domestic courts. UNIL, Lausanne

    Google Scholar 

  • Mann FA (1977) Fusion of the legal professions? Law Q Rev 93:367–377

    Google Scholar 

  • Rainey B, Wicks E, Ovey C (2014) Jacobs White and Ovey, The European Convention on Human Rights. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sass SL (1981) Foreign law in federal courts. Am J Comp Law 29:97–118

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smits P (2008) Artikel 6 EVRM en de civiele procedure. Kluwer, Deventer

    Google Scholar 

  • Strikwerda L (2015) Inleiding tot het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht. Kluwer, Deventer 2015

    Google Scholar 

  • Trautmann C (2011) Europäisches Kollisionsrecht und ausländisches Recht im nationalen Zivilverfahren. Mohr Siebeck, Tübingen

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Den Eeckhout V (2011) The Netherlands. In: Esplugues C, Iglesias JL, Palao G (eds) Application of foreign law. Sellier, Munich, pp 377–389

    Google Scholar 

  • van Dijk P, van Hoof F, van Rijn A, Zwaak L (2006) Theory and practice of the European Convention on Human Rights. Intersentia, Antwerp

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Steven Stuij

Authors
  1. Steven Stuij
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven Stuij .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Christophe Paulussen

  2. Research Department, Law of the European Union, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Tamara Takacs

  3. Research Department, Private International Law, T.M.C. Asser Instituut, The Hague, The Netherlands

    Vesna Lazić

  4. The Hague, The Netherlands

    Ben Van Rompuy

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2016 T.M.C. Asser Press and the author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Stuij, S. (2016). Some Aspects of the Application and Ascertainment of Foreign Law in the Light of Article 6 of the ECHR. In: Paulussen, C., Takacs, T., Lazić, V., Van Rompuy, B. (eds) Fundamental Rights in International and European Law. T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_9

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-6265-088-6_9

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: T.M.C. Asser Press, The Hague

  • Print ISBN: 978-94-6265-086-2

  • Online ISBN: 978-94-6265-088-6

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Societies and partnerships

Search

Navigation