Friday, April 23, 2021

France: Constitutional Court Finds Arrested Persons Have Constitutional Right to Challenge Conditions of Incarceration.


France: Constitutional Court Finds Arrested Persons Have Constitutional Right to Challenge Conditions of Incarceration



Oct. 28, 2020) In a decision of October 2, 2020, the Conseil constitutionnel (Constitutional Council), France’s high court for constitutional questions, found that the absence of judicial recourse for persons under arrest to challenge their conditions of incarceration is unconstitutional. This decision was given in response to two questions prioritaires de constitutionalité (QPC) (priority question of constitutionality), a procedure by which French courts can refer questions about the constitutionality of legislative provisions to the Conseil constitutionnel. In this instance, the Conseil constitutionnel was responding to two QPC from the Cour de cassation, France’s supreme court for civil and criminal matters. These QPC concerned the cases of two individuals who had been charged with crimes and were in detention while awaiting their trials.

These individuals alleged that the conditions of their incarceration violated their dignity as human beings. The preamble to the Constitution of 27 October 1946, which is incorporated by reference in France’s current Constitution, proclaims that “[i]n the morrow of the victory achieved by the free peoples over the regimes that had sought to enslave and degrade humanity, the people of France proclaim anew that each human being, without distinction of race, religion or creed, possesses sacred and inalienable rights.” The Conseil constitutionnel has interpreted this sentence as guaranteeing a right to human dignity since 1994. During oral arguments, attorneys for the two plaintiffs described the poor conditions in which they were incarcerated. One was held in an 8-square-meter cell, which he had to share with two other detainees, with a mattress on the floor. The other described unsanitary conditions including the presence of rats, bed bugs, and centipedes.

The Code de procédure pénale (Code of Criminal Procedure) allows pre-trial detainees to challenge their detention. Article 144 lists the grounds on which a judge may order a person’s pretrial detention, such as to keep the suspect at the disposal of the justice system, prevent the suspect from tampering with evidence or witnesses, prevent the suspect from continuing the criminal behavior for which he/she is under arrest, or protect the suspect. Furthermore, article 144-1 provides that detention must not exceed a “reasonable length of time.” Article 144-1 also provides, in its second paragraph, that a judge must order a person’s release if none of conditions listed in article 144 apply anymore. However, article 144-1 makes no mention of considering the detainee’s conditions of incarceration. This was the issue that the Conseil constitutionnel was asked to resolve: whether the absence of a legal provision that would allow a judge to order the release of a detainee on the basis of that detainee’s conditions of incarceration violated the constitutional right to human dignity. It concluded that yes, the absence of such a provision was a violation of the right to human dignity.

The Conseil constitutionnel decided to strike down the second paragraph of article 144-1 of the French Code of Criminal Procedure. However, it realized that abrogating this provision immediately would create a legal void that would cause serious problems. Specifically, it would remove the legal basis that allows judges to order the release of detainees whose incarceration has exceeded a reasonable length of time or is no longer justified under the criteria set out in article 144. In order to avoid the negative consequences of an immediate abrogation of the second paragraph of article 144-1, the Conseil constitutionnel ruled that the provision would remain in force until March 1, 2021, to give the Parliament the opportunity to correct the deficiency. In the meantime, as explained in the official commentary published on the Conseil constitutionnel’s website, detainees may petition courts for their release under the European Convention on Human Rights.

On July 8, 2020, at the same time that it sent the QPC to the Constitutional Council, the Cour de cassation decided that the two individuals in question should be released under the convention. The Cour de cassation’s interpretation of the European Convention of Human Right’s applicability was largely based on a European Court of Human Rights decision of January 30, 2020, that found France to be in violation of the convention because of poor conditions of detention in several prisons. But while detainees have, on the basis of this decision, the right to challenge their detention in regular courts for violations of their right to human dignity, this procedure is more lengthy and cumbersome than that provided in article 144-1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Indeed, the latter gives detainees the right to petition a juge d’instruction (investigative judge) or a specialized judge called a juge des libertés et de la détention (judge of freedoms and of detention), either of which would lead to a quicker resolution than filing a regular lawsuit.

Thursday, April 15, 2021

France: Court Finds Government Failed to Live Up to Carbon Emissions Reduction Objectives February 3, 2021,



France: Court Finds Government Failed to Live Up to Carbon Emissions Reduction Objectives

February 3, 2021, the Administrative Tribunal of Paris issued a judgment finding the French government liable for failing to live up to its own carbon emissions reduction objectives. This decision came in response to a lawsuit brought by four nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) in March 2019, in which they sought to have the court recognize the French government’s shortcomings in the fight against climate change.

As the preliminary step in bringing their lawsuit, the four NGOs sent a letter to the government alleging that the government had failed to live up to several environmental objectives contained in French regulations and European directives that should have been reached by 2020. These include the goals of a 14% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions, a 20% reduction in overall energy consumption, and a 23% increase in the share of renewable energy in French production. This letter was supported by an online petition that had been signed by close to 1.8 million people by the time the letter was sent to the government on December 18, 2018. The government did not respond to the letter, hence giving the plaintiffs standing to bring the lawsuit.

The four NGOs, acting collectively under the name “L’Affaire du Siècle” (“The Case of the Century”), alleged that the government’s inaction was causing environmental harm, which is a cause for liability under articles 1247 to 1252 of the French Civil Code. The administrative tribunal found that this environmental harm was demonstrated by, among other things, the constant increase in average global temperatures. The tribunal further identified a causal relationship between this environmental harm and the government’s failure to meet its emissions reduction commitments.

The four NGOs sought monetary damages from the government to, in the words of one of their attorneys, “reverse the financial incentive, [and] show the government that these procedures could cost it more than really pursuing these objectives.” However, the administrative tribunal denied this request, noting that the civil code provides for monetary damages in these types of cases only if the measures to repair the environmental harm are impossible or insufficient. The administrative tribunal ordered the government to pay each NGO one euro (about US$1.20) as a symbolic reparation for “moral prejudice.” More importantly, the tribunal acceded to the plaintiffs’ other main demand, which was to compel the government to take measures to repair or mitigate the environmental harm. To that effect, it gave itself two months to investigate what measures it might order the government to pursue, instructing the government to submit statements on the subject within that time frame. The administrative tribunal will render its final decision after this supplemental investigation.

This decision marks the first time that a French court has found the government liable for failing to fulfill its emissions reduction commitments, and it has been hailed as “historic” by the plaintiffs. However, this decision is comparable to one rendered by the Conseil d’Etat, France’s highest jurisdiction for matters of administrative law, on November 19, 2020. In that case, brought by the mayor of a coastal town that risks being submerged by rising seas, the Conseil d’Etat was also asked to judge whether the French government was doing enough to reach its goal of a 40% reduction in greenhouse gas emissions by 2030 compared to 1990. The Conseil d’Etat ruled against a motion to dismiss by the government, finding that the government could be found liable for failure to do enough to reach its emissions reduction goals. Contrary to the Administrative Tribunal of Paris in the “Case of the Century” decision, the Conseil d’Etat did not render a final judgment in the matter of whether the government was liable. Instead, it gave the government three months to show that it is taking sufficient actions to fight against climate change, after which the Conseil d’Etat will give its final judgment in the matter.

Tuesday, April 6, 2021

Germany: Amendments to Adoption Law EnactedMar. 16, 2021)




Germany: Amendments to Adoption Law Enacted



Mar. 16, 2021) On February 18, 2021, the Act to Improve Support to Families That Are Adopting (Adoption Support Act) was published in the German Federal Law Gazette. The Adoption Support Act aims to modernize adoption law and improve adoption placement procedures to safeguard the best interests of the child. In particular, questions of open adoptions and specialized support to families before, during, and after an adoption are addressed. The act makes several amendments to domestic adoption law and the laws governing international adoptions. The amendments will enter into force on April 1, 2021.

Content of the Adoption Support Act

Support and Consultation

The Adoption Support Act makes several amendments to the Adoption Placement Act. (Adoptionsvermittlungsgesetz, AdVermiG.) It legally defines the suitability test for prospective adoptive parents and codifies a list of non-exhaustive criteria that the adoption placement agencies have to look at, such as personal and family circumstances, health conditions, social environment, reasons for wanting to adopt, and the attributes of children who the prospective parents are willing and able to care for. (Amended version of AdVermiG, § 7, paras. 1, 2.) In addition, it introduces a legal right to support for biological and adoptive families after the adoption placement. (Amended version of § 9.) Furthermore, in cases of stepchild adoption, all participants must attend a mandatory consultation with the adoption placement agency before the adoption becomes final. (Amended version of § 9a.)

Open Adoptions

In addition, open adoptions are strengthened. The explanatory memorandum to the Adoption Support Act states that new studies have shown that knowing one’s own origins and being open about the fact that the child is adopted contributes to the success of an adoption. (Explanatory memorandum, at 25.) Adoption placement agencies are tasked with encouraging the adoptive parents to share age-appropriate information regarding the adoption with the child. Furthermore, before the adoption, adoption placement agencies must discuss with the biological and the adoptive parents if and how an information exchange or contact between them will take place in the best interest of the child. Consent to such an agreement can be withdrawn at any time. The child must be involved, depending on their level of development. (Amended version of AdVermiG, § 8a.) The rights of biological parents are strengthened by giving them a right to receive general information concerning their child that the adoptive parents have voluntarily provided to the adoption placement agency to pass on to the biological parents. (Amended version of AdVermiG, § 8b.) These rules only apply to domestic adoptions.

International Adoptions

In addition, the Adoption Support Act will make amendments to the Adoption Placement Act and the Act on the Effect of Adoptions According to Foreign Law (Adoptionswirkungsgesetz, AdWirkG) that will only affect international adoptions. One of the aims of the amendments is to prevent international adoptions performed without the help of a competent adoption agency to safeguard the best interests of the child. (Explanatory memorandum, at 2.) The Adoption Support Act therefore prohibits such international adoptions, and adoptions performed without an agency will generally not be recognized in Germany. (Amended version of AdVermiG, § 2b; amended version of AdWirkG, § 4, para. 1, sentence 1.) In addition, the adoptive parents will be required to file a request for recognition of a foreign adoption decision without undue delay with the specialized family court. (Amended version of AdWirkG, § 1, para. 2; amended version of AdWirkG § 5, para. 1, sentence 2.) There is no such duty if the adoptive parents have a conformity certification according to the Hague Adoption Convention. (Amended version of AdWirkG, § 1, para. 2.) For the recognition of foreign adoption decisions that have been initiated prior to April 1, 2021, the previous rules will be applicable. (Amended version of AdWirkG, § 9.)

Friday, April 2, 2021

Germany: New English-Speaking Commercial Court Opened in the State of Baden-Württemberg




Germany: New English-Speaking Commercial Court Opened in the State of Baden-Württemberg


(Jan. 15, 2021) At the beginning of November 2020, the first English-speaking commercial court began operating in Germany, with locations in Stuttgart (Stuttgart Commercial Court) and Mannheim (Mannheim Commercial Court). The commercial court decides disputes in international commercial law. According to a press release issued by the State Ministry of Baden-Württemberg, the purpose of the commercial court is to strengthen Germany as a potential location for dispute resolution as an alternative to foreign courts and private arbitration. Some courts in Germany have already established English-speaking chambers for commercial matters—for example, the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main (Landgericht Frankfurt am Main).

Organizational Structure

The two locations of the commercial court are organizationally incorporated into the Regional Court Stuttgart (Landgericht Stuttgart) and the Regional Court Mannheim (Landgericht Mannheim). The latter is already renowned for patent law and international proceedings and has gained international recognition— for example, from patent litigation brought by Apple and Samsung.

To provide legal certainty for parties and their legal disputes as well as guarantee expeditious proceedings, specialized appellate bodies at the Higher Regional Court (Oberlandesgericht) in Stuttgart and Karlsruhe are tasked with deciding appeals and complaints, applying the same special procedural rules as the commercial court.

The commercial court is equipped with the latest technological equipment and provides for video conferencing and the virtual hearing of witness and expert testimony (“video testimonies”).

Jurisdiction and Judges

In general, complex disputes in international commercial law may be conducted at the commercial court. Each location has competence to hear disputes in connection with the acquisition of companies or shares of companies, corporate disputes, and disputes resulting from mutual commercial transactions. Additionally, the Mannheim Commercial Court may also hear disputes resulting from bank and financial transactions (within the business-to-business (B2B) sector), and requires for the abovementioned matters a value in dispute of at least 2 million euros (about US$2.46 million). With regard to the Stuttgart Commercial Court, only disputes resulting from mutual commercial transactions require a value of 2 million euros in dispute.

To provide a broad scope of experience and knowledge and promote greater acceptance of its decisions, all commercial court divisions are made up of panels of three judges. Both locations consist of a commercial civil division, which is composed of three regular judges, and a division for commercial matters, with one regular judge and two commercial judges.

All judges appointed to the commercial court must be experts in commercial law and able to conduct proceedings in English. In contrast to arbitration, the parties are not allowed to choose or to appoint the judges themselves, and the judges are not allowed to be involved in other proceedings acting as counsel.

Language of Proceedings

The parties can conduct the proceedings in English and submit documents in English. However, even though there have been some attempts by the German legislature to make English an official court language in Germany, this proposal has not been taken up by the German Bundestag (national parliament). Hence, the extent to which English may be used throughout proceedings is still limited by law. According to section 184 of the Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz (GVG, Courts Constitution Act), the language of the court is German, which is why written submissions, court orders, court records, and judgments must still be in German. According to section 185 of the GVG, if proceedings are carried out with the participation of persons who do not speak German, an interpreter must be called in unless all the people involved understand the foreign language the participants speak. Furthermore, judges may also accept documents produced in English. (Section 142, para. 3 of the Zivilprozessordnung (German Code of Civil Procedure).)

International Aspects

Many jurisdictions in Asia (for example, Dubai and Singapore), but also in Europe, try to make themselves more attractive and available for international commercial disputes. Besides the Commercial Court in London, there is also the International Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal (established in 2018) and the Netherlands Commercial Court in Amsterdam (2019). The Brussels International Business Court was expected to open in 2020, but discussions are stalled. The Zurich International Commercial Court is expected to open in 2021.

Prepared by Viktoria Fritz, Law Library intern, under the supervision of Jenny Gesley, Foreign Law Specialist



Jurisdiction: Germany

Date: January 15, 2021