Abstract
The judgment of 8 January 19791 of the District Court of Rotterdam contained some reflections on adjudicatory jurisdiction which, because they seem at first sight to be superfluous, have provoked a number of questions. It was the second interlocutory judgment in the Rhine pollution case, brought by Dutch nursery gardens and the Stichting Reinwater against the French company Mines de Potasse d’Alsace S.A. In the first interlocutory judgment, the District Court had declined jurisdiction, but this decision had been reversed by the Court of Appeal of The Hague after a preliminary decision of the Court of Justice of the European Communities. The Court of Appeal of The Hague expressly stated that “the District Court of Rotterdam had jurisdiction to hear the case”, and remitted the case to that Court for a decision on the merits. Thus, the issue of jurisdiction seemed to be definitely settled in the proper manner. Nevertheless, the District Court tackled the issue again in the following words:
“The question arises — though this point was not raised by the parties in the present proceedings — whether inhabitants of The Netherlands can ask a Dutch court to deliver judgment on the lawfulness of a French legal person discharging waste salts in France into an international river — the Rhine — and whether the Dutch court, if it considers such discharges unlawful, can order the French legal person to pay compensation for damage sustained by those inhabitants as a result of the discharges”.
Quis judex non subditum cogat ad id, quod extremum est in Jurisdictionen Van Bynkershoek
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
References
NJ 1979 113, NYIL 1980 326, NILR 1981 63 note Duintjer Tebbens. The judges were: Erades, Fransen and Van der Weij. See the references in NILR 1981 p. 63 n. 1. The Court of Justice of the EC interpreted in Article 5(3) of the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments (“A person domiciled in a Contracting State may, in another Contracting State, be sued: in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict, in the courts for the place where the harmful event occurred”) the expression “harmful event” as referring to the tort as well as to the damage.
Pres. DC Rotterdam (Vice Pres. Erades) 3 Dec. 1974, NYIL 1975 365. The President of the D.C. did not specify whether he applied the “rule which sets aside municipal law in conflict with either written or unwritten international law”, or “displayed adroitness in reading conflicts out of existence” by interpreting national law in the desired direction (Erades & Gould, The relation between international law and municipal law, Ley den 1961, p. 351). The judgment was reversed by the CA of The Hague 28 Feb. 1975, WPNR 1981 789. The Court of Appeal considered that the plaintiff was a Dutch company established in the Netherlands and that, moreover, the mandatory and prohibitory injunctions sought did pertain partly to behaviour within Dutch territory, thus leaving undecided whether the former consideration (domicile of the plaintiff; Article 126(3) of the CCPr) would alone be sufficient to oblige the court to assume jurisdiction. Neither the President nor the CA referred to Article 18 of the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments which, in my opinion, barred the ex officio use of the forum non conveniens doctrine. The parties had declared at the trial that they had agreed to submit the case to the President of the District Court of Rotterdam.
DC of Rotterdam (Erades, Van Benthem, Van Deth) 28 June 1976, WPNR 1979 635, NYIL 1978 321.
De foro legatorum, 1721, chap. II. French translation by Jean Barbeyrac, Traité du fuge competent des ambassadeurs, La Haye, 1723, from which I quote the relevant passage: “Toute Jurisdiction, & Civile, & Criminelle, appartient au Souverain seul, qui peut l’exercer ou par lui-même, ou par autrui. Mais de quelque maniére qu’il en dispose, elle ne sauroit jamais s’étendre plus loin, que sur les Personnes, ou les Biens, qui dépendent de sa domination [Latin: Imperio ejus subditas]: car comme, selon la maxime du Droit Civil, on peut impunément refuser d’obéir à un Juge qui veut connoitre de ce qui est hors de son ressort; c’est aussi une régie inviolable du Droit des Gens, Qu’on ne doit commander, qu’à ses Sujets [Latin: ita Juris Gentium vox, impera, sed in subditos]. Tout dépend donc ici de la Sujettion, sans laquelle la Jurisdiction n’a aucune force, non plus que l’Assignation en Justice, qui la précéde. Si une personne étant appellée en Justice, n’y va point, elle encourt, selon le Droit Romain, la peine d’une amende: or peut-on condamner à une amende, quelcun qui ne dépend point de nous?... Un Juge peut-il contraindre quelcun, qui ne dépend point de lui, à faire ou souffrir ce que porte la Sentence, dont l’exécution est le but & la fin de tout Jugement?... Le Juge compétent d’une Personne, est celui du lieu de son domicile, parce que chacun dépend du Magistrat établi dans l’endroit où ; il demeure, à moins qu’il n’ait quelque privilège particulier qui l’en exemte.”
The “power” reasoning is interwoven with another, more social contract type reasoning. The inhabitants are presumed to have voluntarily submitted to the jurisdiction, whereas ambassadors cannot be supposed to have done so (Ch. VIII § III). Here, too, there is a narrow relationship between the first and the second rule.
Conclusion of the Substitut du Procureur du Roi in the case Rangoni, judged by the Par-lement de Provence in 1779, cited by J. Hudault, “Sens et portée de la compétence du juge naturel dans l’ancien droit français”, Rev. Crit. 1972 p. 258. See also French case law and authors mentioned in this. In Holland, Pieter Vromans, De Foro Competenti, 1736 5, p. 13, described the forum actoris as “forbidden, improper” (our translation from Dutch).
Prorogation is as a rule permitted, according to Van Bynkershoek, because the parties can ignore what has been established in their behalf Ch. XXIII § V).
In France, the expression “natural judge” has also been used for the plaintiffs forum. See Hudault, loc. cit., p. 35 et seq. D. Holleaux, Compétence du juge étranger et reconnaisance des jugements, 1970, p. 235, even goes so far as to state that “la doctrine classique du juge naturel ignore donc la règle actor sequitur forum rei”. Vromans, loc. cit. p. 82, says that “it behoves to no judge to administer justice on questions and disputes arising between various persons [“verscheyde Personen”] outside his jurisdiction”, a formula which does not seem to distinguish between plaintiff and defendant. However, in the following text he stresses that jurisdiction implies the possibiliy of enforcement (referring to Aristotle), and then continues with the rule that a case must be brought before the “competent judge of the reus”.
E.M. Meijers, “L’histoire des principes fondamentaux du d.i.p. à partir du Moyen Age”, Recueil des Cours 1934 III pp. 555, 557, 572.
Historically related to the application of the law of the defendant, see Meijers, ibid, pp. 572, 573,593.
A. Engelmann et al., A history of continental civil procedure, 1928, p. 8, 118, 345.
Huber, Heedensdaegse Rechtsgeleertheyt, 1742 4 p. 587.
Along the same lines, Philips Wielant, Practijcke ende maniere van procederen in materie civile, 1622 3,1. XIX. 2 et seq., mentions that the forum contractus and the forum delicti commissi only applied if the defendant was “found” on the spot.
In the same sense Gerardià Wassenaer, Praxis Iudiciaria, 1669, p. 2 (also in case of prorogation, p. 4), and Vromans, op. cit. p. 14,15 and 101.
Huber, op. cit. p. 702. Van Bynkershoek ch. IV, 3. The translator explains in note 2: “la personne absente doit être citée, au son de la Cloche, dans le lieu du ressort du Juge qui a donné le Mandement, lequel lieu est le plus proche du domicile de celui qu’on cite, & à qui on envoie en même tems les Lettres de Citation”. See also Willem de Groot, Inleyding tot de Practyck van den Hove van Holland, 1667 2, 29, who adds that “all this being done, it is assumed to be equivalent to the defendant being personally served”. On the citatio edictalis, see Engel-mann, op. cit., p. 891 n. 3.
The French word naturel also means “indigenous”. Cf. lettres de naturalité, naturalisation. In this sense the substitut in the Rangoni case speaks of proceedings between a “natural français” and a foreigner (cited by Hudault, loc. cit. p. 257).
E.g. by J.D. Meijer, Esprit, origine et progrès des institutions judiciaires des principaux pays de l’Europe, IV, 1820, p. 386.
As early as 1565 by Ayrault, see Hudault, loc. cit. p. 54.
DJ. Jitta, Internationaal Privaatrecht, 1916, p. 164,591.
A.T. Von Mehren, “Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments”, Recueil des Cours 1980 II p. 99/100.
See also K.H. Nadelmann, “Jurisdictionally improper fora in treaties of recognition of judgments”, 67 Col. L. Rev. (1967) p. 1001 and passim. Asser Instituut, Erkenningen tenuitvoerlegging van vreemde vonnissen in vermogensrechtelijke zaken 1969, p. 35.
On the maxim actor sequitur forum rei, see CCA. Voskuil, De internationale bevoegd-heid van de Nederlandse rechter, 1962, p. 78 et seq., and especially the succint analysis by J. Schröder, Internationale Zuständigkeit, 1971, p. 229 et seq., with references.
J.D. Meijer, op. cit. p. 374. In the Netherlands too, it is the general rule (Article 126(1) CCPr). The forum actoris only plays a role if the defendant has no known domicile or residence in the Kingdom (Article 126(3) CCPr). In France it is the general rule between foreigners: Ba-tiffol/Lagarde, 1976 6, II, Nr. 673. For the EEC Countries in general: F. Pocar (see note 29) p. 91.
Article 14 CC, somewhat rashly introduced, see H. Gaudemet-Tallon, Recherches sur les origines de l’article 14 du CC, 1964.
Article 126(3) CCPr.
Article 65(1) (a) of the Portuguese CCPr bases the jurisdiction, inter alia, on the circumstance that “the action has to be brought in Portugal according to the Portuguese rules of territorial competence (venue)”, whereas these latter rules indicate as competent, if the defendant is neither resident nor present within Portuguese territory, the forum of the plaintiffs domicile or, if the plaintiff is domiciled abroad, the court of Lisbon (Article 85). These provisions apparently only apply in cases in which the defendant has Portuguese nationality. Article 65(1) (c) provides that if the defendant is a foreigner and the plaintiff Portuguese, the Portuguese courts have jurisdiction if in the reverse situation the Portuguese could be sued before the courts of the State of which the other party is a national.
Articles 18(2) and 4(4) CCPr have the same tenor as the Portuguese Articles 85 and 65(1) (c) respectively.
Idem, Articles 638 and 636 (in a negative formula with the same effect) of the Code judiciaire.
Articles 65(1) (c) of the Portuguese CCPr. 4(4) of the Italian CCPr. 636 of the Belgian Code judiciaire. See the preceding notes. Para. 101 of the Austrian Jurisdiktionsnorm. In the Netherlands too, Article 127 CCPr (a translation of Article 14 French CC) was introduced because otherwise” “Dutchmen would be deprived of a privilege which others can use against them”. Article 126(3) of the Dutch CCPr was originally meant as a supplementary venue provision. Later case law has ruled out Article 127, and Article 126(3) became the sedes materiae of the forum actoris, now based not on the nationality, but on the domicile of the plaintiff. See Joan van den Honert, Handboek voor de burgerlijke rechtsvordering, 1839, ad Article 127. CCA. Voskuil, op. cit., p. 68 et seq.
Article 4 of the EEC Convention of 1968. Articles 9, 10 and 3(2) of the Dutch-Belgian Treaty of 1925. Article 10 of the French-Belgian Treaty of 1899. Article 1(2) of the French-Swiss Treaty of 1869.
This convention may be classed as a “particular international convention” in the sense of Article 38(1) (a) of the Statute of the International Court of Justice. The permissive attitude was reciprocal, since the other Contracting States had their own exorbitant fora (patrimonii, arresti) accepted in the same way. Nadelmann speaks of an “odd alliance of nations with jurisdictionally improper bases”.
A. Miaja de la Muela, “Les principes directeurs des règles de compétence territoriale des tribunaux internes en matière de litiges comportant un élément international”, Recueil des Cours 1972 I p. 33 et seq., with references.
Adde J. Schröder, Internationale Zuständigkeit, 1971, 234, 766.
A.A. Ehrenzweig/E. Jayme, Private International Law, II, 1973, p. 7.
M. Akehurst, A modern introduction to international law, 1977 3,104. F. Pocar, in: Inst. Univ. Int. Luxembourg, L’influence des Communautés européennes sur le d.i.p. des Etats membres, 1981, p. 81.
W. Wengler, Völkerrecht, 1964, p. 947 n. 4: “äusserste völkerrechtliche Grenzen”. He mentions as an example that no state may assume jurisdiction in matrimonial cases on the sole basis of the presence of assets belonging to the plaintiff.
Cf., W. Jellinek, Die zweiseitigen Staatsverträge über Anerkennung ausländischer Urteile, 1953, p. 18. Brownlie, Principles of public int. law, 1979 3, p. 299.
Kosters-Dubbink, Algemeen deel van het Nederlandse internationaal privaatrecht, 1962, p. 729.
Cf. Cass. 12–5–1931 Sirey 1932.1.137 and the note by Niboyet, both referring to the principle of independence and sovereignty of States.
A.C.J. Mulder, Internationaal privaatrecht, 1947 2, p. 48. The authors mentioned in not 39 come closest to the opinion that the forum actoris violates international law. Compare also the protest of the US Department of State against the service of a summons for a Greek Court by the Greek consul in New Orleans on a US citizen resident in Louisiana. The summons related to action arising out of an automobile accident which occured in Louisiana involving a US citizen and a Greek national. According to the US Department of State, this exercise of jurisdiction was “not generally accepted under international law’. (Digest of US Practice in International Law, 1975, 339, referred to by Wengler, Internationales Privatrecht, 1981, p. 754 n. 5). I do not know on which Greek jurisdiction provision the case was based.
Holleaux, op. cit., p. 332, mentions the frequent use of the actor sequitur in checking the jurisdiction of foreign courts. Niboyet, Cours de d.i.p., 1946, p. 655: “Aucun pays étranger n’acceptera la valeur d’un jugement rendu contrairement aux règles normales de la compétence”. Batiffol/Lagarde p. 479 (at least “si le domicile du défendeur est en France”). For Dutch law, see: Asser Instituut, Er kenning en tenuitvoerlegging van vreemde vonnissen in Vermogensrechte-lijke zaken, 1969, 35. French version in: D. Kokkini-Iatridou et J.P. Verheul, Les effets des jugements et sentences étrangers aux Pays-Bas, 1970, p. 11, also in: Neth. Reports to the VHIth int. congress of comp, law, Pescara 1970, Deventer 1970, p. 139. Adde: DC of Rotterdam 16 jan. 1976, WPNR 1979 p. 635. For Belgium, expressly, Art. 570(2) (3) Code judiciaire as regards the forum of the plaintiffs nationality.
34a. As far as the EEC Convention on Jurisdiction and Judgments is concerned, this is only true in a broad sense. The judge, granting the order for enforcement, does not usually check the jurisdiction of the first court (Article 28). However, the drafters of the Convention considered that the first court should, and normally will, conform to the jurisdiction rules of Title II.
Nadelmann, loc. cit. Von Mehren, loc. cit.
Actes & Documents, 1966 p. 490. When the final text of the Protocol as a whole was put to the vote, France and Germany abstained for some other reason (p. 491).
11 ILM 470(1972). Tractatenblad 1973 No. 43. This Convention was ratified by Austria, Belgium and Cyprus (in force 11 June 1976) and afterwards by the U.K. (in force 4 October 1979). Among the signatory States are The Netherlands, Luxembourg and Portugal.
W.G. Belinfante, “Het Europese verdrag inzake de immuniteit van Staten”, Med. NVIR, No. 67, May 1973, pp. 24, 26.
Mackender v. Feldia (1967) 2 WLR 119, CA., per Diplock. See also F.A. Mann, “The doctrine of jurisdiction in international law”, Recueil des Cours 1964 I p. 75. L.I. de Winter, “Excessive jurisdiction in p.i.l.”, ICLQ, 1968, 806.
Actes & Documents, 1966, p. 288.
Cf., G. van Hecke, “Principes et méthodes en d.i.p.”, Recueil des Cours, 1969 I, 419. As regards the part (to be) played by national courts in the formation of international law, see Erades & Gould, op. cit. p. 223 et seq., and Erades, “International Law and the Netherlands Legal Order”, in: International law in the Netherlands, III, 1980, 375.
Akehurst, “Jurisdiction in International law”, BYIL 1972–73,145, at p. 212.
Hence formerly also called “natural law”, and sometimes identified with Roman law. Dutch authors described the forum arresti as contrary to “written law” or to Roman law, but nonetheless considered it to be valid law in force in Holland (Vromans, op. cit., p. 121, Pieter Bort, Alle de wercken, 1731 3, p. 466.
J. van der Linden, Verhandeling over de judicieele practifck, 1794, p. 269). The traditional supplementary idea was that “particular” laws deviating from the “common” law were permitted but had only local validity. Compare the conclusion in the judgment mentioned in note 3, that the French judgment was “valid only within French territory”.
Cf., District Court of Alkmaar 1 Dec. 1977, NILR 1981 210, profiting from an uncertainty in the law in order to decline jurisdiction based on garnishment for situations in which a recognizable judgment can be obtained from the foreign forum rei. In Mackender v. Feldia, the Court was also exercising a discretion (see note 39).
G. van Hecke, loc. cit., p. 418.
H.F. Van Panhuys, “Relations and interactions between international and national scenes of law”, Recueil des Cours, 1964 II, p. 48.
Let alone the fact that the controversy revealed real contacts with the forum country.
I reserve commenting on the question of exhaustion of local remedies, not mentioned by the Court. An interesting question is, whether the application in France for an order for enforcement of a Dutch judgment could count as a local remedy in this sense.
J.G. Lammers, “New international legal developments concerning the pollution of the Rhine”, NILR 1980, 190.
Cf. article 24(2) of the European Convention on State Immunity. In the District Court of Alkmaar 1 Dec. 1977 (note 44) the defendant was the Republic of Malta, and the Court a forum arresti.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1983 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Verheul, J.P. (1983). The Forum Actoris and International Law. In: Essays on International & Comparative Law. Springer, Dordrecht. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1468-6_15
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-1468-6_15
Publisher Name: Springer, Dordrecht
Print ISBN: 978-94-017-1470-9
Online ISBN: 978-94-017-1468-6
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive