Proof of and Information About Foreign Law

Nishitani, Yuko

doi:10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_8

Yuko Nishitani⁵

Part of the book series: Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law ((GRIA,volume 24))

860 Accesses

Abstract

This general report conducts a comparative study mainly on the following three points. First, the report examines comparatively the question of whether the application of conflict of laws is mandatory or facultative. Second, the report analyses the nature of foreign law and distinctive features of its treatment, particularly in relation to the mandatory and the facultative application of foreign law, the ascertainment of foreign law and the review of foreign law by appeal courts. Although the starting point on how to treat foreign law differs in civil law and common law jurisdictions, the practical outcome is more similar than would appear at first, even though unification of the treatment of foreign law is still a long way off. Third, the report critically scrutinizes the existing methods for obtaining information on foreign law in the light of administrative and judicial cooperation and analyses possibilities for improving access to foreign law.

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

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution

Chapter: USD 29.95; Price excludes VAT (USA)

eBook: USD 229.00; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Softcover Book: USD 299.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Hardcover Book: USD 299.99; Price excludes VAT (USA)

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

1.
Pierre Mayer/Vincent Heuzé, Droit international privé, 11^th ed. (Paris 2014), p. 140.
2.
See the conventions adopted by the Hague Conference on Private International Law (http://www.hcch.net/) and the Organization of American States (http://www.oas.org/).
3.
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), O.J. 2008, L 177/6; 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), O.J. 2007, L 199/40; Council Regulation (EC) No 4/2009 of 18 December 2008 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and cooperation in matters relating to maintenance obligations, O.J. 2009, L 7/1 (hereinafter “Maintenance Regulation”); Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, O.J. 2010, L 343/10 (hereinafter “Rome III Regulation”); Regulation (EU) No 650/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 4 July 2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession, O.J. 2012, L 201/107 (hereinafter “Succession Regulation”); Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, O.J. 2016, L 183/1 (hereinafter “Matrimonial Property Regimes Regulation”); Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1104 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of the property consequences of registered partnerships, O.J. 2016, L 183/30 (hereinafter “Partnership Regulation”).
4.
European Convention of 7 June 1968 on Information on Foreign Law; Additional Protocol of 15 March 1978 to the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law.
5.
Inter-American Convention of 8 May 1979 on Proof of and Information on Foreign Law.
6.
Convention of 22 January 1993 on Legal Aid and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters, amended on 28 March 1997.
7.
Various preliminary documents are available on the HCCH website (http://www.hcch.net/) under “Work in Progress” then “General Affairs; also Conclusions and Recommendations of the Joint Conference of the European Commission and Hague Conference on Private International Law on “Access to Foreign Law in Civil and Commercial Matters” (Brussels, 15-17 February 2012) (available at: http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=events.details&year=2012&varevent=248).
8.
http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/index_en.htm; for an overview of conflicts rules and the treatment of foreign law in the EU Member States, see http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/applicable_law/applicable_law_gen_en.htm.
9.
Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, The Application of Foreign Law in Civil Matters in the EU Member States and its Perspectives for the Future (hereinafter “SICL Report”) (JLS/2009/JCIV/PR/0005/E4), Part I: Legal Analysis; Part II: Empirical Analysis; Synthesis Report with Recommendations (2011) (available at: http://ec.europa.eu/); Carlos Esplugues/José Luis Iglesias/Guillermo Paolo (eds.), Application of Foreign Law (Munich 2011) (it includes “Principles for a Future EU Regulation on the Application of Foreign Law” [“Madrid Principles”]); see also Carlos Esplugues Mota, “Harmonization of Private International Law in Europe and Application of Foreign Law: The ‘Madrid Principles’ of 2010”, Yearbook of Private International Law 13 (2011), pp. 273 ff.
10.
Argentina, Australia, Belgium, Commonwealth African Countries, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Israel, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Macau/China, Malta, Poland, Portugal, Quebec/Canada, Romania, Sweden, Switzerland, Tunisia, U.K., Uruguay, Turkey, U.S. and Venezuela.
11.
Spain and Tunisia (as revised).
12.
Report of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (hereinafter “HCCH report”); see also Philippe Lortie/Maja Groff, “The Missing Link between Determining the Law Applicable and the Application of Foreign Law: Building on the Results of the Joint Conference on Access to Foreign Law in Civil and Commercial Matters (Brussels, 15-17 February 2012)”, in: A Commitment to Private International Law. Essays in honour of Hans van Loon (Cambridge et al. 2013), pp. 325 ff.
13.
This general report and other reports will be published in: “Treatment of Foreign Law: Dynamics towards Convergence?” (Springer, forthcoming 2015).
14.
See Maarit Jänterä-Jareborg, “Foreign Law in National Courts: A Comparative Perspective”, in: Recueil des cours 304 (2003), pp. 202 ff.
15.
See infra note 32.
16.
Art. 18 and 21 TFEU (ex-Art. 12 and 18 TEC): see, in particular, CJEU, 2.10.2003, Case C-148/02 [Garcia Avello], Rep. 2003, I-11613; CJEU, 14.10.2008, Case C-353/06 [Grunkin Paul], Rep. 2008, I-7639; CJEU, 22.12.2010, Case C-208/09 [Sayn-Wittgenstein], Rep. 2010, I-13693; CJEU, 12.5.2011, Case C-391/09 [Runevič-Vardyn], Rep. 2011, I-3787; see Michael Grünberger, “Alles Obsolet? Anerkennungsprinzip vs. klassisches IPR”, in: Leible/Unberath (ed.), Brauchen wir eine Rom 0-Verordnung? (Sipplingen 2013), pp. 81 ff.; Paul Lagarde (ed.), La reconnaissance des situations en droit international privé (Paris 2013); Heinz-Peter Mansel, “Anerkennung als Grundprinzip des Europäischen Rechtsraums. Zur Herausbildung eines europäischen Anerkennungs-Kollisionsrechts: Anerkennung statt Verweisung als neues Strukturprinzip des Europäischen internationalen Privatrechts?”, RabelsZ 70 (2006), pp. 651 ff., 705 ff.
17.
For example, § 98 (1) No. 4 FamFG (divorce jurisdiction depends on the recognition of German judgments in the spouses’ country of origin).
18.
For example, § 328 (1) No. 5 ZPO and § 109 (4) FamFG; Art. 118 No. 4 Japanese CPC (reciprocity requirement).
19.
See Art. 3 (4)(a) and Art. 5-14 of the EU Insolvency Regulation (Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings, O.J. 2000, L 160/1); Art. 3 (4)(a) and Art. 8-17 of the EU Insolvency Regulation Recast (Regulation (EU) 2015/848 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20 May 2015 on insolvency proceedings (recast), O.J. 2015, L 141/19).
20.
Argentina; Australia; Quebec; Croatia; France; Georgia; Greece; Israel; Italy; Japan; Poland; Portugal; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela.
21.
Friedrich Karl von Savigny, System des heutigen römischen Rechts, Vol. 8 (Berlin 1849), pp. 2 ff.
22.
Cf. 1989 Santiago de Compostela Resolution of the Institute of International Law: “Equality of Treatment of the Law of the Forum and of Foreign Law” (http://www.idi-iil.org/idiE/resolutionsE/1989_comp_02_en.PDF).
23.
Only some Latin American and Arab states still exclude or limit party autonomy. In the U.S., the eligible laws that can be chosen by the parties are generally limited to those that have a close relationship with the contract. See Jürgen Basedow, “The Law of Open Societies: Private Ordering and Public Regulation of International Relations”, Recueil des cours 360 (2013), pp. 164 ff.
24.
Randall Hansen/Patrick Weil, “Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality: Towards a Convergence in Europe?”, in: Hansen/Weil (ed.), Towards a European Nationality. Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality Law in the EU (Hampshire/New York 2001), pp. 5 ff.; Olivier W. Vonk, Dual Nationality in the European Union (Leiden 2012), pp. 47 ff.
25.
See, inter alia, Art. 3 of the Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction (hereinafter “Child Abduction Convention”); Art. 4-5 of the Convention of 29 May 1993 on Protection of Children and Co-operation in Respect of Intercountry Adoption; Art. 15-17 of the Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, Enforcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Responsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children; Art. 13-16 of the Convention of 13 January 2000 on the International Protection of Adults; Art. 3-6 of the Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations (hereinafter “Hague Protocol”) (available at: http://www.hcch.net/).
26.
See Art. 15 Maintenance Regulation (Art. 3-6 of the 2007 Hague Protocol); Art. 8 Rome III; Art. 21 Succession Regulation.
27.
Belgium (2004 PIL Act); Czech Republic (2012 PIL Act); Switzerland (1987 PIL Act); also Finland.
28.
Heinz-Peter Mansel, “Die kulturelle Identität im Internationalen Privatrecht”, BerDGesVO 43 (2008), p. 171; Marc-Philippe Weller, “Der ‘gewöhnliche Aufenthalt’ — Plädoyer für einen willenszentrierten Aufenthaltsbegriff —”, in: Leible/Unberath (ed.), Brauchen wir eine Rom 0-Verordnung? (Sipplingen 2013), p. 300.
29.
Art. 3 Rome I; Art. 14 Rome II; Art. 5 Rome III; Art. 15 Maintenance Regulation (Art. 7 and 8 of the 2007 Hague Protocol); Art. 22 Succession Regulation; Art. 22 Matrimonial Property Regimes Regulation; Art. 22 Partnership Regulation (supra note 3).
30.
Art. 15 Maintenance Regulation (Art. 4 (2)(3) of the 2007 Hague Protocol).
31.
See, e.g., Dicey, Morris & Collins, The Conflict of Laws, 15^th ed., vol. 2 (London 2012), para. 17R-001 ff. (marriage: Rule 73-75), 18R-032 ff. (divorce and separation: Rule 85), 19R-001 ff. (parental responsibility: Rule 104-105), 20R-009 ff. (parentage: Rule 113-118), 27R-010 ff. (succession: Rule 149-164) and 28 R-001 ff. (the effect of marriage on property: Rule 165-167); Peter Hay/Patrick J. Borchers/Symeon C. Symeonides, Conflict of Laws, 5^th ed. (St. Paul, MN 2010), pp. 614 ff., 1285 ff.
32.
Joseph Henry Beale, A Treatise on the Conflict of Laws, vol. 1 (New York 1935), pp. 53 ff.; also Restatement (First) Conflict of Laws (1934).
33.
Hay/Borchers/Symeonides, supra note 31, pp. 27 ff.; Symeon C. Symeonides, The American choice-of-law revolution: past, present and future (Leiden 2006), pp. 9 ff.
34.
Restatement (Second) Conflict of Laws (1971).
35.
Brainerd Currie, “The Constitution and the Choice of Law: Governmental Interests and the Judicial Function”, in: Selected Essays on the Conflict of Laws (Durham/NC 1963), pp. 188 ff.
36.
Robert Allen Leflar, American Conflicts Law, (3^rd ed., Indianapolis/NY et al. 1977), pp. 212 ff.
37.
Albert Armin Ehrenzweig, Private International Law. A Comparative Treatise on American International Conflicts Law, vol. 1: General Part (Leyden/NY 1967), pp. 91 ff.
38.
U.S. District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, 15 August 2013 [Awad v. Ziriax], 966 F. Supp. 2d 1198; see Peter Hay, “Section II.B: Private International Law: The Use and Determination of Foreign Law in Civil Litigation”, Am. J. Comp. L. 62 (2014), pp. 217 ff.
39.
Hay, supra note 38, pp. 233 ff.
40.
See Jürgen Basedow, “The Application of Foreign Law – Comparative Remarks on the Practical Side of Private International Law”, in: Basedow/Pißler (ed.), Private International Law in Mainland China, Taiwan and Europe (Tübingen 2014), p. 91.
41.
U.K. (Richard Fentiman, International Commercial Litigation, 2nd ed. (Oxford 2015), para. 20.03 f.); also Australia; U.S. (Hay, supra note 38, p. 232); for Japan, see Tokyo District Court, 22 February 2013 (Westlaw Japan Case No. 2013WLJPCA02226001); for Japanese jurisdiction rules, see Yuko Nishitani, “International Jurisdiction of Japanese Courts in Comparative Perspective”, Netherlands International Law Review 60 (2013), pp. 270 ff.
42.
Croatia (German, Austrian, Italian, Hungarian and Swiss laws; laws of former Yugoslavian countries); Czech Republic (Slovakian, German, Polish and Austrian law); Georgia (Russian, Turkish or Ukrainian laws); Germany (Dutch law and laws of other EU Member States); Hungary (Austrian, German and Romanian laws); Tunisia (laws of Arab countries and certain European countries).
43.
Portugal and Brazil or Cape Verde.
44.
U.K., Australia.
45.
Nordic countries (Sweden, Norway, Finland); Latin American countries (Argentina, Uruguay, Venezuela).
46.
See, e.g., Czech Republic (Vietnamese, Ukrainian and Russian law); Germany (Turkish and Iranian law); Italy (Moroccan, Egyptian and Tunisian law).
47.
Yayohi Satoh, “Law Applicable to Personal Status of Korean and Chinese Nationals before Japanese Courts”, Japanese Yearbook of International Law 55 (2012), pp. 323 ff.
48.
For the ascertainment of the internationality or foreign elements of the case in civil procedure, see infra Sect. 8.2.3.2.4.
49.
See Esplugues et al. (ed.), supra note 9, pp. 18 ff.; Sofie Geeroms, Foreign Law in Civil Litigation: A Comparative and Functional Analysis (Oxford 2004), para. In 11 ff.
50.
Argentina; Austria; Macau; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Georgia; Germany; Italy; Greece; Japan; Poland; Portugal; Quebec; Romania; Switzerland; Tunisia; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela. See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “Summary Tables on the Status of and Access to Foreign Law in a Sample of Jurisdictions”, Information Document B of February 2007 (hereinafter “Summary Tables”).
51.
Axel Flessner, “Fakultatives Kollisionsrecht”, RabelsZ 34 (1970), pp. 547 ff.; also idem, “Das Parteiinteresse an der Lex Fori nach europäischem Kollisionsrecht”, in: Verbeke et al. (eds.), Liber Amicorum Walter Pintens (Cambridge et al. 2012), pp. 593 ff.; idem, “Das ausländische Recht im Zivilprozess — die europäischen Anforderungen”, in: Reichelt (ed.), 30 Jahre österreichisches IPR-Gesetz — Europäische Perspektiven — (Wien 2009), pp. 35 ff.
52.
See, inter alia, Rudolf Hübner, Ausländisches Recht vor deutschen Gerichten (Tübingen 2014), pp. 190 ff.; Oliver Remien, “Proof of and Information about Foreign Law”, in: Schmid-Kessel (ed.), German National Reports on the 19th International Congress of Comparative Law (Tübingen 2014), p. 224; Jänterä-Jareborg, supra note 14, pp. 197 ff.
53.
For France, see, e.g., Sabine Corneloup, “Rechtsermittlung im Internationalen Privatrecht der EU: Überlegungen aus Frankreich”, RabelsZ 78 (2014), pp. 845 ff.; idem, “L’application de la loi étrangère”, Rev. int. dr. comp. 2014, pp. 363 ff.; Bénédicte Fauvarque-Cosson, “Foreign Law before the French Court: The Conflicts of Law Perspective”, in: Cavinet et al. (eds.), Comparative Law before the Courts (London 2004), pp. 3 ff.
54.
For Scandinavian countries, see Jänterä-Jareborg, supra note 14, pp. 277 ff.
55.
Cour de cassation, 12.5.1959, Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 1960, 62.
56.
Cour de cassation, 4.12.1990, Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 1991, 558; Cour de cassation, 26.5.1999, Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 1999, 707; Cour de cassation, 28.6.2005, Rev. crit. dr. int. pr. 2005, 645.
57.
Corneloup, supra note 53, RabelsZ 2014, pp. 845 ff.
58.
Corneloup, supra note 53, Rev. int. dr. comp. 2014, pp. 365 ff.
59.
Also Belgium, Denmark, Hungary and Tunisia; for procedural agreement, see, inter alia, Bénédicte Fauvarque Cosson, Libre disponibilité des droits et conflits de lois (Paris 1996), pp. 241 ff.; see infra Sect. 8.2.3.2.3.
60.
France; Sweden; Belgium; Tunisia.
61.
Denmark; Hungary.
62.
Germany; Italy; Japan; Sweden; Tunisia; for further detail, see ISDC Report, supra note 9, pp. 10 ff.
63.
Belgium (see François Rigaux/Marc Fallon, Droit international privé, 3rd ed. (Bruxelles 2005), para. 6.52).
64.
Germany (Art. 26 FamFG); Japan (Art. 20 Personal Matters Procedure Act and Art. 56 (1) Family Procedure Act).
65.
Quebec; Sweden.
66.
France.
67.
See Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, p. 20.
68.
Argentina; Croatia; Georgia; Germany; Tunisia.
69.
Australia; Commonwealth African countries; Ireland; U.K.; U.S.; also Malta; Israel; Quebec; Luxemburg.
70.
Corneloup, supra note 53, Rev. int. dr. comp. 2014, pp. 372 f. This point is disputed in Hungary.
71.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-011; Trevor C. Hartley, “Pleading and Proof of Foreign Law: The Major European Systems Compared”, Int’l & Comp.L.Q. 45 (1996), pp. 271 ff. However, a deviating opinion emphasizes the mandatory character of the conflicts rules of the EU regulations and conventions, and the resulting application of foreign law. Richard Fentiman, Foreign Law in English Courts. Pleading, Proof and Choice of Law (Oxford 1998), pp. 92 ff.; also idem,supra note 41, para. 5.07.
72.
Argentina; Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; Finland; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Tunisia; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela.
73.
Also Denmark.
74.
For further detail, Hübner, supra note 52, pp. 274 ff.; also Max Keller/Daniel Girsberger, “Art. 16 IPRG”, in: Zürcher Kommentar zum IPRG, 2^nd ed. (Zürich 2004), para. 20 ff.; Monica Mächler-Erne/Susanne Wolf-Mettier, in: Honsell et al. (ed.), Basler Kommentar: Internationales Privatrecht, 3^rd ed. (Basel 2013), Art. 16 IPRG, para. 9 ff.
75.
Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, p. 17.
76.
U.K.; Malta; Australia; Commonwealth African countries; Ireland; Israel; Quebec.
77.
See Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-012.
78.
Hartley, supra note 71, pp. 271 ff.
79.
In England, Civil Evidence Act 1972, s. 4 (2); J.J. Spigelman, “Proof of Foreign Law by Reference to the Foreign Court”, Law Quarterly Review 127 (2011), pp. 208 f.
80.
High Court of Justice, Probate, Divorce and Admiralty Division (England & Wales), Parkasho v Singh [1968] P 233; Court of Appeal, Civil Division (England & Wales), Dalmia Dairy Industries Ltd v National Bank of Pakistan [1978] 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 223; Court of Appeal, Civil Division (England & Wales), Bumper Development Corp Ltd v Comr of Police [1991] 1 WLR 1362; for further detail, see Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.131 ff.; idem, supra note 71, pp. 77 ff., 286 ff.
81.
Gilles Cuniberti/Isabella Rueda, “Luxemburg”, in: Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, pp. 256 ff.
82.
Hay, supra note 38, pp. 227, 234.
83.
José Luis Iglesias et al., “Spain”, in: Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, pp. 357 f.
84.
Art. 10:2 CC; see A. (Teun) V. M. Struycken, “The Codification of Dutch Private International Law: A Brief Introduction to Book 10 BW”, RabelsZ 78 (2014), p. 607.
85.
See supra n. 75.
86.
Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, pp. 17 f.; Hartley, supra note 71, pp. 271 ff.
87.
Argentina; Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; Finland; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Switzerland; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela.
88.
Austria (§§ 3 and 4 PIL Act).
89.
Belgium (Art. 15 PIL Act); Croatia (Art. 13 (1) PIL Act); Italy (Art. 14 (1) PIL Act); Switzerland (Art. 16 (1) PIL Act).
90.
Belgium; Denmark; France; Sweden.
91.
Remien, supra note 52, pp. 229 ff.
92.
Inter-American Convention on General Rules of Private International Law, signed at Montevideo on 8 May 1979. It is in force in Argentina, Brazil, Columbia, Ecuador, Guatemala, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, Uruguay and Venezuela (for the status table, see http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-45.html).
93.
Convention on Private International Law (Bustamante Code), signed at Havana on 20 February 1928, ratified by Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Costa Rica, Cuba, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua, Panama, Peru and Venezuela (for the status table, see http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/a-31.html).
94.
Cuniberti/Rueda, supra note 81, pp. 256 ff.
95.
Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, pp. 20, 28; similarly also in Tunisia.
96.
Hay, supra note 38, pp. 223 ff.
97.
Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.01.
98.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-002.
99.
Provided for in: Croatia (Art. 13 (1) PIL Act); Czech Republic (Sec. 23 (1)(2) PIL Act); Italy (Art. 14 (1) PIL Act).
100.
Keller/Girsberger, supra note 74, Art. 16 IPRG, para. 18 ff.; Mächler-Erne/Wolf-Mettier, supra note 74, Art. 16 IPRG, para. 13 f.
101.
See BGE 124 I 49; also BGE 119 II 93.
102.
Remien, supra note 52, pp. 230 ff.
103.
Argentina; Belgium; Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; France; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Macau; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Tunisia; Venezuela.
104.
See http://www.couplesineurope.eu/ and http://www.successions-europe.eu; cf. “European Legislation Identifier” (ELI) and “European Case Law Identifier” (ECLI) (see http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2014pd14en.pdf).
105.
See Mayer/Heuzé, supra note 1, p. 145.
106.
Belgium; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Italy; Japan.
107.
See Hilmar Krüger, “Zur Ermittlung ausländischen Rechts in Deutschland: Ein Bericht aus der Praxis”, in: Ergin Nomer’e Armaǧan (Istanbul 2002), pp. 372 f.
108.
Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law (MPI) in Hamburg, Germany.
109.
Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (SICL) in Lausanne, Switzerland.
110.
International Legal Institute (Internationaal Juridisch Instituut) (IJI) in The Hague, Netherlands.
111.
Hellenic Institute of International and Foreign Law (HIIFL) in Athens, Greece.
112.
Argentina; Georgia; Hungary; Japan; Poland.
113.
Belgium; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Hungary; Italy; Portugal; Romania; Sweden; Tunisia; Turkey.
114.
In Venezuela, the court may issue a non-binding procedural order to request the party to submit sufficient information on foreign law, without imposing on the party an obligation to do so.
115.
Ex-Art. 219 CPC of Japan (Law No. 29 of 1890) which was modelled on § 293 ZPO of Germany was abolished in 1926, allegedly because the underlying principle was self-evident. Some authors still assert that the parties incur the obligation to cooperate with the courts in ascertaining foreign law, as in Germany.
116.
Germany (§ 293 CPC); Switzerland (Art. 16 PIL Act); supra note 72. The effects of breaching such an obligation are uncertain. Ivo Bach/Urs Peter Gruber, “Austria and Germany”, in: Esplugues et al. (ed.), supra note 9, p. 105.
117.
Remien, supra note 52, pp. 213 f.
118.
See Yuko Nishitani, “Internationale Kindesentführung in Japan — Auf dem Weg zur Ratifikation des HKÜ? —”, in: Festschrift für Bernd von Hoffmann zum 70. Geburtstag (Bielefeld 2011), pp. 319 ff.
119.
Argentina; Belgium; Czech Republic; Estonia; Germany; Greece; Portugal; Venezuela. As an exception, information on foreign law is said to be binding in Macau.
120.
For example, Uruguay.
121.
Belgium; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Germany; Greece; Japan; Sweden.
122.
Argentina; Czech Republic; Hungary; Uruguay; Venezuela.
123.
Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.06 ff.
124.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-005; for further detail, see Fentiman, supra note 71, pp. 244 ff.
125.
U.K. (Maintenance Orders Act 1950, s. 22 (2); Civil Evidence Act 1972, s. 4 (2)); also Australia.
126.
2008 Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of New Zealand on Trans-Tasman Court Proceedings and Regulatory Enforcement (entry into force in 2013); sec. 97 (1)(2) of the Trans-Tasman Proceedings Act (An Act relating to proceedings in Australian and New Zealand courts and tribunals, and for related purposes) 2010 (Cth).
127.
The Uniform Judicial Notice of Foreign Law Act (1936) and Uniform Interstate and International Procedure Act (1962) were withdrawn in 1977 for being obsolete. Hay/Borchers/Symeonides, supra note 31, p. 605; Hay, supra note 38, pp. 221 ff.
128.
However, the court may also ask the parties to prove the religious laws and appoint an expert in family matters.
129.
High Court of Justice, Chancery Division (England & Wales), Re Cohn [1945] Ch. 5.
130.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-006 ff.
131.
Hay/Borchers/Symeonides, supra note 31, pp. 605 ff.; Hay, supra note 38, pp. 221 ff.
132.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-008.
133.
New South Wales Court of Appeal, Damberg v Damberg (2001) 52 NSWLR 492, 519; [2001] NSWCA 87 [154] (the parties’ agreement that German law is similar to Australian law was not accepted).
134.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-013.
135.
U.K. (Civil Evidence Act 1972, s. 4 (1)); Australia; Commonwealth African countries; Ireland; Israel; Malta; Quebec.
136.
U.K. (Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-015 ff.; Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.48 ff.); Australia; Ireland; Malta.
137.
See, e.g., Bumper, supra note 80. Fentiman, however, contends that English courts are empowered in principle to appoint their own expert instead of those of the parties. Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.07.
138.
See Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.38, 20.48 ff.; Hay, supra note 38, pp. 228 ff.
139.
Sunstar, Inc. v. Alberto-Culver Co., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, 586 F.3d 487 (28 Oct. 2009); also Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, Ibid., 621 F.3d 624 (2 Sept. 2010).
140.
Opinion of Judge Wood in Bodum USA, Inc. v. La Cafetiere, supra note 140.
141.
Hay, supra note 38, pp. 229 ff.; Jinro America Inc. v. Secure Investments, Inc., U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, 266 F.3d 993 (14 Sept. 2001).
142.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-023.
143.
Austria; Belgium; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; France; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Hungary; Israel; Italy; Japan; Macau; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Sweden; Switzerland; Tunisia; Turkey.
144.
Belgium; Czech Republic; Estonia; Finland; Georgia; Germany; Hungary; Italy; Poland; Uruguay.
145.
BGH, 4 July 2013, NJW 2013, 3656.
146.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-018 f.; Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.138 ff.
147.
High Court of Australia, Neilson v Overseas Projects Corporation of Victoria Ltd. (2005) 223 CLR 331; [2005] HCA 54.
148.
U.K.; Australia; Commonwealth African countries (codified by statute in Ghana); Malta; Quebec.
149.
Until 1966, Switzerland also placed the burden of proving foreign law upon the parties (Bundesgericht 11 May 1966, BGE 92 II 111) and applied in its absence Swiss law, assuming that the content of foreign law corresponds to the lex fori.
150.
Federal Court of Australia, Tisand Pty Ltd v Owners of the Ship MV Cape Morton (2005) 219 A.L.R. 48.
151.
Neilson, supra note 147; see Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-026.
152.
Damberg, supra note 133.
153.
Court of Appeal, Civil Division (England & Wales), Shaker v Al-Bedrawi [2002] EWCA Civ 1452, [2003] Ch. 350; also Court of Appeal, Civil Division (England & Wales), Fourie et al v Le Roux et al [2005] EWCA Civ 204 (South African law on set-off in the course of insolvency); idem, MA (Ethiopia) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2009] EWCA Civ 289 (Ethiopian nationality law).
154.
Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.94; see alsoTalia Einhorn, Private International Law in Israel, 2nd ed. (Alphen aan den Rijn 2012), pp. 411 ff.
155.
Neilson, supra note 147.
156.
Dicey, Morris & Collins, supra note 31, vol. 1, para. 9-025 ff.
157.
Hay, supra note 38, p. 220.
158.
Argentina; Belgium; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Georgia; Germany (prevailing opinion); Greece; Hungary; Poland; Romania; Sweden; Switzerland; Tunisia; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela.
159.
Italy (Art. 14 (2) PIL Act).
160.
Portugal (Art. 23 (2) and Art. 348 No. 3 CC). If this subsidiary applicable law cannot be ascertained either, the “common law” of Portugal will apply.
161.
Chiba District Court (Matsudo Branch), 11 August 1965, Katei Saiban Geppô 18-9, 53 (North Korea).
162.
Tokyo District Court, 19 March 1966, Kaminshû 27-1/4, 125 (North Korea).
163.
Nagoya Family Court, 30 November 1983, Katei Saiban Geppô 36-11, 138 (China).
164.
For Switzerland, see Kurt Siehr, Das Internationale Privatrecht der Schweiz (Zürich 2002), pp. 577 f.
165.
UNIDROIT Principles of International Commercial Contracts (UPICC).
166.
Principles of European Contract Law (PECL).
167.
See Remien, supra note 52, p. 249.
168.
Argentina; Australia; Belgium; Commonwealth African countries; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Georgia; Germany; Greece; Israel; Italy; Japan; Netherlands; Poland; Portugal; Quebec; Romania; Spain; Sweden; U.K.; Tunisia; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela.
169.
Art. 43a (1)(a) and Art. 68 (b)(c) OG; Art. 96 (a) BGG; Keller/Girsberger, supra note 74, Nach Art. 16 IPRG, para. 6 ff.
170.
Corneloup, supra note 53, Rev. int. dr. comp. 2014, pp. 383 f.
171.
Argentina; Austria; Croatia; Czech Republic; Denmark; Estonia; Finland; Georgia; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Poland; Portugal; Romania; Sweden; Tunisia; Turkey; Uruguay; Venezuela.
172.
In Spain, while academic opinions are still divided, courts have become responsive to the review of foreign law. Yet the determination of foreign law does not qualify as Spanish case law.
173.
Art. 43a (1)(2), Art. 68 (d) OG; Art. 96 (b) BGG; Keller/Girsberger, supra note 74, Nach Art. 16 IPRG, para. 4, 6 ff.
174.
Cour de cassation, 18 March 2013 (La générale des carrières et des mines/R.L., Umicore) (n^o C.12.0031.F, available at: http://justice.belgium.be/fr/).
175.
Michael Traest, “Belgium”, in: Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, pp. 130, 137 ff.
176.
Corneloup, supra note 53, Rev. int. dr. comp. 2014, pp. 384 f.
177.
BGH, 4.7.2013, NJW 2013, 3656; BGH, 14.1.2014, NJW 2014, 1244.
178.
BGH, 21.1.1991, NJW 1991, 1418; see Remien, supra note 52, pp. 250 ff.
179.
Art. 10:2 CC; Struycken, supra note 84, p. 607.
180.
Geeroms, supra note 49, para. 5.147 ff.
181.
Geeroms, supra note 49, para. 5.68 ff.
182.
For the U.K., see House of Lords, Attorney General of New Zealand v. Ortiz [1984] AC 1; [1984] 2 WLR 809; [1983] 2 All ER 93; cf. Hartley, supra note 71, pp. 271 ff.
183.
Geeroms, supra note 49, para. 5.88 ff.
184.
The Belgian, French, Japanese and Tunisian reporters in particular bring forward these arguments.
185.
See, e.g., Corneloup, supra note 53, Rev. int. dr. comp. 2014, pp. 386 f.; Hübner, supra note 52, pp. 374 ff.; Matthias Jacobs/Tino Frieling, “Revisibilität ausländischen Rechts in den deutschen Verfahrensgesetzen – zugleich Besprechung des Beschlusses des Bundesgerichtshofs vom 4 Juli 2013”, ZZP 2014, pp. 137 ff.
186.
Czech Republic; France; Germany; Italy; Japan; Poland; Sweden; Tunisia; Uruguay; also U.K.
187.
Similarly also Belgium and Quebec.
188.
U.K.; Australia; Israel; Malta.
189.
Argentina; Czech Republic; Denmark; Germany; Italy; Portugal; Uruguay; Venezuela.
190.
Cf. International Law Association, 2008 Rio de Janeiro Resolution: “Ascertaining the content of the applicable law in international commercial arbitration” (available at: http://www.ila-hq.org/en/committees/index.cfm/cid/19).
191.
See, e.g., Hague Conference on Private International Law, Guide to Good Practice under the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction: Mediation (2012) (available at: http://www.hcch.net/upload/guide28mediation_en.pdf); Sybille Kiesewetter/Christoph C. Paul, Cross-Border Family Mediation. International Parental Child Abduction, Custody and Access Cases (Frankfurt am Main 2011).
192.
Belgium; France; Italy; Quebec; Uruguay.
193.
Also in Poland and Japan.
194.
See supra note 29; for the status quo, see Eva-Maria Kieninger, “Ermittlung und Anwendung ausländischen Rechts”, in: Leible/Unberath (eds.), Brauchen wir eine Rom 0-Verordnung? (Jena 2013), pp. 488 ff., 494 ff.
195.
See, inter alia, Clemens Trautmann, Europäisches Kollisionsrecht und ausländisches Recht im nationalen Zivilverfahren (Tübingen 2011), pp. 17 ff.
196.
Available at: http://www.hcch.net/.
197.
See Principle IV of the Madrid Principles at: Esplugues et al. (eds.), supra note 9, p. 95.
198.
Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger, ‘Randbemerkungen zum Allgemeinen Teil eines europäisierten IPR’, in: Festschrift Jan Kropholler (Tübingen 2008), pp. 245 ff.; Andreas Spickhoff, “Die Rechtswahl und ihre Grenzen unter der Rom I-VO”, in: Kieninger/Remien (ed.), Europäische Kollisionsrechtsvereinheitlichung (Baden-Baden 2012), pp. 119 ff.; Trautmann, supra note 195, pp. 415 ff.
199.
Trautmann, supra note 195, pp. 418 ff.
200.
Fentiman, supra note 71, pp. 66 ff., 87 ff. (e.g., Art. 5 and 6 of the 1980 Rome Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations, O.J. 1980, L 266/1).
201.
Stefania Bariatti/Étienne Pataut, “Codification et théorie générale du droit international privé”, in: Fallon et al. (ed.), Quelle architecture pour un code européen de droit international privé? (Bruxelles et al. 2011), pp. 343 ff.
202.
Supra note 51.
203.
Art. 133 (2) of the “Embryon de règlement portant code européen de droit international privé”, in: Fallon et al. (ed.), Quelle architecture pour un code européen de droit international privé? (Bruxelles et al. 2011), p. 373.
204.
See Corneloup, supra note 53, RabelsZ 2014, pp. 856 f.
205.
See supra note 29 and 194.
206.
It is suggested that the scope of procedural agreements should be limited to the subject-matter before the court and third parties’ rights ought to be reserved. Kieninger, supra note 194, pp. 491 ff.; also Corneloup, supra note 53, RabelsZ 2014, pp. 854 ff.
207.
Fentiman, supra note 41, para. 20.144 ff.
208.
As of 28 February 2017 (see http://www.hcch.net/index_en.php?act=conventions.status&cid=24).
209.
Australia, Israel and Quebec.
210.
A proper definition of judicial notice will be required. For the conceptual ambiguity of judicial notice, see Fentiman, supra note 71, pp. 314 f.
211.
For example, Finland and U.K.
212.
There is also the Convention on Information in Legal Matters with respect to Law in Force and its Application signed on 22 September 1972 in Brasilia. Argentina and Portugal are party to this treaty. In addition, the Riyadh Arab Agreement for Judicial Cooperation was adopted by the League of Arab States (signed on 6 April 1983), which serves to exchange “the texts of legislations in force, legal and judicial publications, pamphlets and studies, and journals containing legal statutes and judgements, as well as information pertaining to judicial regulations” (Art. 1 (1)) (unofficial English translation available at: http://www.refworld.org/docid/3ae6b38d8.html [accessed 8 February 2016]). According to the Tunisian national reporters, this instrument has not frequently been employed.
213.
Explanatory Report, para. 13 (available at: http://conventions.coe.int/Treaty/en/Reports/Html/062.htm). Art. 4 (1) of the Additional Protocol, however, requires that Contracting States designate one or more bodies to act as transmitting agency.
214.
Explanatory Report, supra note 213, para. 20.
215.
For status table, see http://conventions.coe.int/.
216.
§§ 1 ff. of the Gesetz zur Ausführung des Europäischen Übereinkommens betreffend Auskünfte über ausländisches Recht und seines Zusatzprotokolls (AuRAG) of 5.7.1974 (BGBl. I S. 1433); § 72 (1) of the Rechtshilfeordnung für Zivilsachen (ZRHO) of 28.10.2011.
217.
See Raphael Perl, “European Convention on Information on Foreign Law”, IJLL 8 (1980), pp. 151 f.
218.
For status table and declarations, see http://www.oas.org/juridico/english/sigs/b-43.html.
219.
See Hague Conference on Private International Law, “The Convention on Legal Assistance and Legal Relations in Civil, Family and Criminal Matters” (submitted by the Delegation of the Russian Federation: Information Document No 1 of April 2005 for the attention of the 20^th Session of June 2005 on Jurisdiction, Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters [available at: http://www.supremecourt.ge/files/upload-file/pdf/act20.pdf]).
220.
See, inter alia, Eberhard Desch, “Best Practices Survey of the European Convention on Information on Foreign Law (ETS No. 62, London, 7 June 1968)”, CDCJ (2002) 15 (cdcj/doc2002/cdcj15e2002); individual responses to the HCCH questionnaire on the treatment of foreign law (http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff_resp_pd09.html); SICL Report, Part II, supra note 9, pp. 17 f.; cf. Hübner, supra note 52, pp. 250 ff.; Krüger, supra note 107, pp. 360, 387 ff.; Trautmann, supra note 195, pp. 177 f.
221.
Reply of the U.K. to the HCCH questionnaire, see supra note 220.
222.
Reply of Russia to the HCCH questionnaire, see supra note 220.
223.
Vertrag zwischen der Bundesrepublik Deutschland und dem Königreich Marokko über die Rechtshilfe und Rechtsauskunft in Zivil- und Handelssachen of 14 April 1958 (BGBl. 1959 II S. 118).
224.
Agreement on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters and Co-operation in Arbitration between Australia and the Kingdom of Thailand, done at Canberra on 2 October 1997, [1998] ATS 18.
225.
Treaty on Judicial Assistance in Civil and Commercial Matters between Australia and the Republic of Korea, done at Canberra on 17 September 1999, [2000] ATS 5.
226.
Supra note 126.
227.
Among other countries, Argentina, Australia, Canada, Denmark, Germany, Hong Kong, Israel, Japan, Malta, the Netherlands, New Zealand, the U.K., Uruguay and the U.S. participate in the Hague Judicial Network. See https://assets.hcch.net/docs/18eb8d6c-593b-4996-9c5c-19e4590ac66d.pdf (accessed 8 February 2016).
228.
See, e.g., Hague Conference on Private International Law, Direct Judicial Communications (available at: http://www.hcch.net/upload/brochure_djc_en.pdf) (accessed 8 February 2016), p. 12; also Philippe Lortie, Report on Judicial Communications in Relation to International Child Protection (Preliminary Document No. 8 of October 2006 for the attention of the 5^th meeting of the Special Commission to review the operation of the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction), pp. 5 ff.
229.
Supra note 8.
230.
Red Iberoamericana de Cooperación Jurídica Internacional (Iber-RED). This network has gained 22 Member States, which comprise Portugal, Spain and Latin American countries. See https://www.iberred.org/.
231.
Art. 25 (2) of the UNCITRAL Model Law on Cross-Border Insolvency (1997) (available at: http://www.uncitral.org/).
232.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Supreme Court of Singapore and the Supreme Court of New South Wales on References of Questions of Law 2010; UCPR 2005 (NSW), r 6.44 (1).
233.
Memorandum of Understanding between the Chief Justice of New South Wales and the Chief Judge of the State of New York on References of Questions of Law 2010; UCPR 2005 (NSW), r 6.44 (2).
234.
Hay, supra note 38, p. 223; Alexander Barnett Kennedys, “The first of its kind — questions of foreign law referred to New York — Marshall v Fleming” (19 July 2013: available at http://www.kennedys-law.com/article/MOU/ [reproduced from Australian Civil Liability]). The NSW/NY-MOU allows the judge to act sua sponte to send inquiries to the other courts (Art. 1).
235.
Spigelman, supra note 79, p. 213.
236.
Marshall v Fleming [2013] NSWSC 566.
237.
Australia; Commonwealth Africa; also Israel and Quebec.
238.
HCCH report; Lortie/Groff, supra note 12, pp. 329 ff.; see also Shaheeza Lalani, “A Proposed Model to Facilitate Access to Foreign Law”, Yearbook of Private International Law 13 (2011), pp. 299; Permanent Bureau, “Report of the Meeting of Experts on Global Co-operation on the Provision of Online Legal Information on National Laws (19-21 October 2008)”, Prel. Doc. No 11 B of March 2009 for the attention of the Council of March/April 2009 on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference (available at: http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/genaff_pd11b2009e.pdf). According to the Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2012 Joint Conference (supra note 7), any “future instrument should contemplate a range of mechanisms to cater to the needs of various actors of different means and resources who are seeking access to foreign law, including judges, legal practitioners, notaries, government officials and the general public, in a variety of circumstances, and should be operational in different legal systems and traditions, and address language barriers. Circumstances may include cross-border litigation and non-contentious matters such as contractual negotiations, estate planning, and family arrangements.” (para. 6).
239.
Argentina; Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; Finland; Greece; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Macau; Portugal; Romania; Spain; Tunisia; Uruguay; Venezuela.
240.
Germany.
241.
Australia; Commonwealth Africa; also Quebec.
242.
Fentiman, supra note 71, pp. 239 ff.
243.
See also Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2012 Joint Conference (supra note 7), para. 14.
244.
Croatia; Czech Republic; Finland; Hungary; Italy; Japan; Portugal; Quebec; Spain; Sweden; Switzerland; Uruguay; Venezuela.
245.
Conclusions and Recommendations of the 2012 Joint Conference (supra note 7), para. 12 f.; Lortie/Groff, supra note 12, p. 334.
246.
Australia; Croatia; Czech Republic; Estonia; Italy; Japan; Macau; Portugal; Quebec; Sweden; Uruguay; Venezuela. As an exception, Turkey refrained from taking part in the European Judicial Network due to concerns regarding the additional workload.
247.
Spigelman, supra note 79, p. 216.
248.
Oliver Remien, “Illusion und Realität eines europäischen Privatrechts”, in: Juristenzeitung 1992, p. 282; idem, “European Private International Law, the European Community and its Emergng Area of Freedom, Security and Justice”, in: Common Market Law Review 38 (2001), pp. 78 f.; idem, “Iura novit curia und die Ermittlung fremden Rechts im europäischen Rechtsraum der Artt. 61 ff. EGV – für ein neues Vorabentscheidungsverfahren bei mitgliedstaatlichen Gerichten”, in: Aufbruch nach Europa: 75 Jahre Max-Planck-Institut für Privatrecht (Tübingen 2001), p. 627.
249.
Jänterä-Jareborg, supra note 14, p. 323.
250.
Art. 4 ff. of the Regulations (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (recast), O.J. 2012, L 351/1; see CJEU, 1.3.2005, Case C-281/02 [Owusu], Rep. 2005, I-1383; see criticism at Trautmann, supra note 195, p. 410.
251.
Art. 3 ff. of the Council Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, repealing Regulation (EC) No 1347/2000, O.J. 2003, L 338/1 (“Brussels IIbis”).
252.
Art. 3 ff. Maintenance Regulation.
253.
Art. 5 ff. Succession Regulation. See alsoArt. 4 ff. Matrimonial Property Regimes Regulation and Art. 4 ff. Partnership Regulation.
254.
Sec. 13 ff. of the 1994 Uniform Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (UCJPTA) (available at: http://ulcc.ca/en/home-en-gb-1/183-josetta-1-en-gb/uniform-actsa/court-jurisdiction-and-proceedings-transfer-act/1092-court-jurisdiction-proceedings-transfer-act)
255.
Introductory Comments to the UCJPTA (supra note 254); for further detail, see Vaughan Black/Stephen Pitel/Michael Sobkin, Statutory Jurisdiction: An Analysis of the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Toronto 2012), pp. 214-249 (the author sincerely thanks Prof. Richard Oppong for providing this citation).
256.
Greece, Hungary; Ireland; Israel; Poland.
257.
Conclusions and Recommendations adopted by the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Conference, held from 24 till 26 March 2015 (available at: http://www.hcch.net/upload/wop/gap2015concl_en.pdf).

Abbreviations

CC:: Civil Code
CJEU:: Court of Justice of the European Union
CPC:: Civil Procedure Code
EC:: European Community
EU:: European Union
HCCH:: Hague Conference on Private International Law
PIL:: Private International Law
TEC:: Treaty establishing the European Community ([consolidated version 2006] O.J. 29.12.2006, C 321/37)
TFEU:: Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union ([consolidated version 2016] O.J. 7.6.2016, C 202/47)

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Kyoto University Graduate School of Law, Kyoto, Japan
Yuko Nishitani

Authors

Yuko Nishitani
View author publications
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Yuko Nishitani .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Department of Civil Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria
Martin Schauer
Department of European, International and Comparative Law, University of Vienna, Vienna, Wien, Austria
Bea Verschraegen

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Nishitani, Y. (2017). Proof of and Information About Foreign Law. In: Schauer, M., Verschraegen, B. (eds) General Reports of the XIXth Congress of the International Academy of Comparative Law Rapports Généraux du XIXème Congrès de l'Académie Internationale de Droit Comparé. Ius Comparatum - Global Studies in Comparative Law(), vol 24. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_8

Download citation

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-024-1066-2_8
Published: 02 June 2017
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-024-1064-8
Online ISBN: 978-94-024-1066-2
eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics