Séance du mardi 6 novembre 2007 (après-midi) Meeting of Tuesday 6 November 2007 (afternoon)
The meeting was opened at 2.57 p.m. under the chairman-ship of Mr Bonomi (Switzerland), also serving as Rappor-teur.
Article 8 – Désignation de la loi applicable / Designation of the applicable law
1. The Chair invited the delegation of the European Community to present Working Document No 5.
2. Ms Lenzing (European Community – Commission) explained that at the Special Commission held in May there was a consensus to allow party autonomy, but to provide safeguards in order to protect the weaker party.
She explained that Working Document No 5 does not pro-pose to amend paragraphs 1 and 2 of Article 8.
Paragraph 3 of the working document differentiated be-tween two categories of people excluded from the scope of application of Article 8, namely (i) persons under the age of 18, and (ii) vulnerable adults, as defined in the text of the working document. She added that vulnerable adults were only excluded in situations where there is typically a conflict of interest, such as where the other party is the le-gal representative of the vulnerable adult. She highlighted the fact that the first footnote in the working document emphasised that there may be other situations where a con-flict of interest may emerge that have not been specified.
Procès-verbal/Minutes No 3 Procès-verbal/Minutes No 3 I-167 She also noted that a new paragraph 4 had been added in
Working Document No 5 and that paragraph 4 of the pre-liminary draft Protocol had been renumbered paragraph 5.
In respect of paragraph 4 of the working document, it was explained that it was important to the European Community and its Member States that an added safeguard be included to prevent creditors from renouncing the right to mainte-nance entirely where the law of their habitual residence does not allow them to do so. It was stated that it would be preferable to apply the law of the habitual residence, rather than a default connecting factor such as nationality.
Regarding paragraph 5 of the working document, it was reiterated that this paragraph elaborates upon the provisions of paragraph 4 of the preliminary draft Protocol. The Dele-gate of the European Community stated that there was sup-port for the idea that the chosen law should not apply where this would lead to manifestly unfair or unreasonable conse-quences, but that it was envisaged that there could be cases that were not manifestly unreasonable if both parties are duly informed of the consequences of their choice in ad-vance. The Delegate of the European Community empha-sised that this would enhance legal certainty as this provi-sion would be employed principally between spouses who have been duly advised of the consequences of their choic-es and would expect to be certain of the outcome thereof.
In conclusion, the Delegate noted that the proposal of the European Community achieves a fair balance between legal certainty and the safeguarding of inalienable rights and, as such, is an improvement on the formula adopted in the pre-liminary draft Convention.
3. The Chair invited the delegation of Japan to explain its comments on Article 8.
4. Mr Hayakawa (Japan) noted that his delegation had submitted written comments in respect of paragraph 3. He stated that his delegation is of the view that it is preferable to adopt the age of 18 as a benchmark since this would be more consistent with the Hague Convention of 19 October 1996 on Jurisdiction, Applicable Law, Recognition, En-forcement and Co-operation in Respect of Parental Re-sponsibility and Measures for the Protection of Children and the Hague Convention of 13 January 2000 on the that this would increase legal certainty but stated that it was necessary to reflect on this proposal further.
5. The Chair thanked the Delegate of the European Com-munity and invited the delegation of Switzerland to present its remarks.
6. M. Markus (Suisse) souhaite évoquer la proposition de la délégation de la Communauté européenne ainsi qu’un problème sérieux à l’égard du paragraphe premier, alinéas (c) et (d), de l’article 8 de l’avant-projet de Protocole. Il de-mande au Président si le deuxième cas doit être évoqué maintenant ou plus tard.
7. Le Président l’autorise à évoquer les deux sujets.
8. M. Markus (Suisse), en ce qui concerne le paragraphe premier de l’article 8, propose de biffer la demi-phrase « , ou
celle appliquée, » des alinéas (c) et (d). En effet, « le créan-cier et le débiteur d’aliments peuvent à tout moment dési-gner » (art. 8(1) de l’avant-projet de Protocole) l’une de ces lois. Par conséquent, la désignation peut se faire très tôt et avant toute procédure judiciaire. Le Délégué de la Suisse pose donc la question de savoir ce que ces demi-phrases signifient. En effet, à ce stade, il est possible qu’aucune loi n’ait été appliquée par un juge. Si l’on trouve une loi appli-quée, il y aura un grand problème car on ne sait pas quel juge sera compétent ni donc quel droit sera appliqué car comme chacun le sait, les règles de droit international privé sont déterminées par le juge compétent. En conséquence, on peut considérer que l’ajout de ces demi-phrases a peu de sens. Par exemple, si l’on prend le cas d’une loi à désigner, il est en pratique parfois très difficile de déterminer quelle loi sera effectivement appliquée par le juge compétent.
De manière similaire, on peut noter qu’en ce qui concerne la première partie de la phrase des alinéas (c) et (d) de l’ar-ticle 8, paragraphe premier, à savoir « la loi désignée par les parties comme étant applicable », si le choix est effec-tué avant toute procédure, alors on ne peut pas encore dé-terminer si le choix de la loi applicable est accepté par le droit international privé du for car on ne connaît pas encore le for. On peut d’ailleurs rappeler que dans beaucoup d’or-dres juridiques, la désignation d’une loi applicable par le créancier et le débiteur d’une obligation alimentaire n’est pas possible.
Le Délégué de la Suisse en vient maintenant à la proposi-tion de la délégaproposi-tion de la Communauté européenne et s’ex-primera en anglais pour la suite de son intervention.
Turning to Working Document No 5, Mr Markus stated that the proposed formulation of paragraph 3 gave rise to some doubts. He was of the view that it was not clear that Arti-cle 8 would not apply to obligations of a child below the age of 18 towards an adult. He noted that these scenarios would be rare but that it was pertinent to raise this matter for the sake of completeness. He also questioned the neces-sity of addressing the question of the capacity of vulnerable adults explicitly in Article 8, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (b), of the working document. He felt that this could be covered by the law governing representation. He observed that the language concerning vulnerable adults could therefore be deleted.
He also questioned the necessity of including paragraph 4 of the working document, although he insisted that he was not opposed to it and that he could envisage scenarios in which it might be employed.
Finally, he added that the inclusion in paragraph 5 of the phrase “unless it is established that at the time of the desig-nation the parties were duly and fully informed of the con-sequences of their designation” could give rise to prolonged proceedings in practice, although he had no objection to the principle enshrined in the proposed language.
9. Mme Mansilla y Mejía (Mexique) remercie le Prési-dent et souhaite discuter la proposition d’un nouvel article 8 de la délégation de la Communauté européenne (Doc. trav.
No 5). La délégation du Mexique considère que si l’on sou-haite, au paragraphe 3 (a), exclure les enfants de moins de 18 ans, alors il serait raisonnable aussi d’exclure explicite-ment les enfants de moins de 18 ans présentant un handicap.
En outre, elle relève que la rédaction de l’article 8, para-graphe 4, de l’avant-projet de Protocole (Doc. prél. No 30) est plus claire que celle de l’article 8, paragraphe 5, tel que proposé par la délégation de la Communauté européenne.
S’ajoute à cela le fait qu’en application de l’article 8, para-graphe 5, de la proposition, le juge serait susceptible d’ap-pliquer une loi qui serait injuste au seul motif que les par-ties ont été informées. Ainsi, la rédaction de l’avant-projet de Protocole est préférable à celle de la proposition.
10. Le Président donne la parole à la délégation de l’Es-pagne.
11. Mme Parra Rodriguez (Espagne) remercie le Prési-dent et souhaite présenter une remarque ayant trait à l’arti-cle 8. La délégation de l’Espagne soutient la position de la délégation de la Suisse pour dire que la possibilité de choi-sir entre la loi applicable et la loi appliquée n’éclaircit pas la situation. Si l’on garde « la loi applicable » à leurs rela-tions patrimoniales (art. 8(1)(c)) et à leur divorce ou à leur séparation de corps (art. 8(1)(d)) l’Espagne est d’accord.
En droit espagnol, la loi applicable au divorce et aux rela-tions patrimoniales est différente de celle applicable aux obligations alimentaires. Ainsi, la présence de ces disposi-tions est opportune.
En ce qui concerne le paragraphe 4 de la proposition de la délégation de la Communauté européenne, l’Espagne est justement un pays qui connaît des problèmes en matière de renonciation. La délégation de l’Espagne est donc plutôt fa-vorable au maintien de l’article 8 de l’avant-projet de Pro-tocole.
12. Mr Hellner (Sweden) stated that to exclude Article 8, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (d), as proposed by the delega-tion of Switzerland, was not advisable as that provision contained positive elements that should be retained. He elu-cidated his argument through the example of a situation where the provision was useful in Sweden, namely in pro-ceedings where the divorce decree, the agreement on the separation of property, and the agreement on maintenance are temporally and formally distinct. He felt that there was no reason to exclude different choices of law at the differ-ent stages of proceedings.
He then turned to the contribution of the delegation of Mexico regarding paragraph 3. He noted his disagreement, provided that he was correct in understanding that it had been proposed to exclude any possibility of applying that paragraph to vulnerable adults. Noting that the delegation of Mexico wished to clarify its previous statement, he sur-rendered the floor.
13. Mme Mansilla y Mejía (Mexique) clarifie sa position précédente et assure qu’elle n’est pas contraire à la protec-tion du majeur mais qu’il est important de prévoir expres-sément la protection des mineurs vulnérables de moins de 18 ans. La Déléguée du Mexique est tout à fait d’accord pour accorder cette protection au majeur vulnérable.
14. Le Président remercie la Déléguée du Mexique.
15. Mr Bonomi (Rapporteur) asked the delegation of the European Community to clarify whether paragraph 4 of Working Document No 5 referred only to the complete re-nunciation of maintenance, or if it also included renuncia-tion in part. He added that it could be argued that paragraph 5 was not necessary as its provisions could be deemed to be included in the new paragraph 4.
16. Ms Lenzing (European Community – Commission) replied that paragraph 4 referred only to the complete re-nunciation of maintenance rights. She also noted that para-graph 5 was distinct from parapara-graph 4 and should therefore be retained.
She took the opportunity to point out footnote 2 in Working Document No 5, which proposed that the Explanatory Re-port should make it clear that a capital settlement could not constitute a renunciation of the right to maintenance.
17. Ms Albuquerque Ferreira (China) expressed doubts regarding Working Document No 5 and the extent to which it constituted an improvement on the text of the preliminary draft Protocol. She stated that she understood there was previously some agreement at the Special Commission re-garding party autonomy, but that her delegation had since noted there may be problems with the practical application of this principle.
She also questioned the necessity of Article 8, paragraph 3, sub-paragraph (b), regarding the protection of vulnerable adults in the working document. She opined that the other party would not necessarily be the legal representative of the vulnerable adult in practice.
Regarding paragraph 4 of the working document, she stated that this new provision improved the functioning of Article 8.
On the matter of the proposed paragraph 5, she felt that it was better to include the proposed additional text, although she was of the view that parties would never agree to a choice of law that would lead to manifestly unfair or unrea-sonable outcomes if they were properly advised.
In the final analysis, she insisted that doubts regarding Ar-ticle 8 persisted because it was not clear that one could reach agreements regarding rights that may not be disposed.
She emphasised that her delegation was therefore making concessions when it accepted party autonomy, with the nec-essary safeguards. She concluded that she remained uncer-tain about whether or not the working document improved upon Article 8 as formulated in the preliminary draft Proto-col.
18. The Chair concluded that there is no general agree-ment regarding all aspects of Article 8, but that there is agreement that the faculty of choice should be excluded for children under the age of 18, rather than under the age of 21. He observed that there was no support for the use of the age of 21 as a benchmark and that it could therefore be de-leted in the context of this particular Article.
The Chair drew the delegates’ attention to the reference to Article 4, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (c), in Article 8, par-agraph 1. He noted that the exclusion of a reference to Ar-ticle 4, paragraph 1, sub-paragraph (a), concerning obliga-tions of parents towards their children created a lacuna with respect to children over the age of 18. He proposed that the Drafting Committee should look into this matter.
He also noted that there was no opposition to the proposed added safeguard in paragraph 4 of Working Document No 5 from the European Community and therefore surmised that there was agreement thereon.
Furthermore, he observed that there were some matters that remained controversial. He observed that the proposal of the delegation of Switzerland did not garner support, and that no consensus emerged regarding Article 8 paragraph 1, sub-paragraphs (c) and (d), of the preliminary draft Proto-col, or the treatment of vulnerable adults.
He added that there appeared to be consensus regarding Article 8, paragraph 4, of the preliminary draft Protocol, re-numbered paragraph 5 in Working Document No 5, but that there was no agreement regarding the phrase added there-
Procès-verbal/Minutes No 3 Procès-verbal/Minutes No 3 I-169 to in the said working document from the European
Com-munity.
He proposed to refer his conclusions to the Drafting Com-mittee and invited observations on his conclusions.
19. M. Marani (Argentine) souhaite s’exprimer sur la ques-tion des mineurs. Concernant la référence à l’article 4, pa-ragraphe premier, alinéa (c), de l’article 8 de l’avant-projet de Protocole, il n’est peut-être pas possible de modifier ce qui a été fait ce matin. Néanmoins, il pourrait être utile de conserver l’âge de 21 ans pour certains cas, bien que cela puisse être difficile pour le moment.
20. The Chair noted that the Diplomatic Session must conclude the question of age at a later time during the Ses-sion.
Article 5 – Règle spéciale relative aux époux et ex-époux / Special rule with respect to spouses and ex-spouses 21. The Chair invited the delegation of the European Community to present Working Document No 4. He noted that this working document proposes a new formulation of Article 5 as drafted in Working Document No 2.
22. Ms Lenzing (European Community – Commission) stated that Working Document No 4 was set out to take into account the concerns that the delegations of Japan and Switzerland had with the previous draft.
She opined that the structure of the Article had been refor-mulated in order to address the concerns of the delegation of Japan regarding the previous reference to a request of one of the parties. Instead, the new formulation referred to an objection by one of the parties in the event that there were a law more closely connected. In addition, she observed that there was now no reference to “the Court seized” and that alternative methods of dispute resolution were therefore also included.
In respect of the concerns of the delegation of Switzerland, she drew attention to the fact that Working Document No 4 does not contain any reference to Article 3. She stated that there was no substantive change but that it was clearer that the connecting factor remains the closest connection with the marriage.
23. Mr Markus (Switzerland) thanked the delegation of the European Community and expressed the view that the new draft constituted significant progress.
The Delegate of Switzerland flagged the concern that if the parties were free to object at any point in the proceedings, this could give rise to abusive behaviour, including objec-tions by the debtor just before the decision was due to be promulgated. He therefore proposed to amend the Article by adding a stipulation as to the latest time when an objec-tion may be made. He suggested that the delegates consider the deliberation of the merits of the case as the latest possi-ble juncture for objections to be made.
24. The Chair invited the delegation of Switzerland to submit a written proposal for the consideration of the dele-gates.
25. Mr Hayakawa (Japan) thanked the delegation of the European Community for taking his concerns into account and stated that the proposed text was acceptable.
26. Ms Lenzing (European Community – Commission) cautioned that the delegation of Switzerland should consid-er the expconsid-erience of intconsid-ernal discussions in the European Community before attempting to formulate a uniform pro-cedural restriction. She recalled that, after much delibera-tion, the European Community had concluded that it was best to leave procedural matters of this nature to the law of the forum. She invited the delegation of Switzerland to consider the obstacles to harmonisation that were encoun-tered within the European Community before attempting to formulate a global rule. She felt that such a global rule would not be readily acceptable and was also unnecessary.
27. The Chair concluded that there was agreement re-garding the adoption of Option 3 of the preliminary draft Protocol, as amended in Working Document No 4. He add-ed that there remainadd-ed room for possible improvements on the basis of a proposal to come by the delegation of Swit-zerland.
Réunion du Comité de rédaction / Meeting of the Drafting Committee
28. Ms Doogue (Chair of the Drafting Committee) an-nounced that there would be a meeting of the Drafting Committee immediately following the conclusion of the Plenary.
29. The Chair added that the Plenary would articulate its mandate to the Drafting Committee at the end of the meet-ing.
Le Président informe la Commission qu’il y a eu des con-sultations informelles durant la pause. Il rappelle que l’ar-ticle 8 exclut le choix de la loi applicable pour les enfants et peut-être pour les adultes vulnérables, ce qui n’est pas le
Le Président informe la Commission qu’il y a eu des con-sultations informelles durant la pause. Il rappelle que l’ar-ticle 8 exclut le choix de la loi applicable pour les enfants et peut-être pour les adultes vulnérables, ce qui n’est pas le