Instrumentos de Desarrollo

In cases where a foreign witness has an obligation to cooperate with the trial court in the course of a transfer of foreign evidence,⁶⁹ the question arises as to whether the said court can use measures of compulsion if the witness refuses to collaborate. Whether and, if so, to what extent such coercive measures are allowed under public international law depends on two factors: the addressee of the measure, foreign litigant or foreign third party, and the content of the measure.

65 Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Be-weisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 90 et seq.

66 See, amongst others, Geimer E Internationale Beweisaufnahme 42 et seq.; Schack H Internationales Zivilver-fahrensrecht 2010 273 n. 795; Geimer R Internationales Zivilprozessrecht 2009 210 n. 428; Daoudi J Extra-territoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Beweisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 91; Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Ausland im deut-schen Zivilprozess 1996154 et seq.; Mössle KP Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im internationalen Wirt-schaftsrecht: Eine vergleichende Untersuchung unter besonderer Berücksichtigung des US-amerikanischen und deutschen Rechts 1990 341; Eschenfelder ED Beweiserhebung im Ausland und ihre Verwertung im inlän-dischen Zivilprozess: Zur Bedeutung des US-amerikanischen discovery-Verfahrens für das deutsche Erkennt-nisverfahren 2002 73; Nagel H and Gottwald P Internationales Zivilprozessrecht 2007 399 n. 5; Schlosser P ʻExtraterritoriale Rechtsdurchsetzung im Zivilprozessʼ in Pfister B and Will MR (eds) Festschrift für Werner Lorenz zum siebzigsten Geburtstag 1991 508.

67 Cf. also in this regard Chapter 2 paras. II.B.1 and II.B.2.

68 See, amongst others, Geimer E Internationale Beweisaufnahme 1998 47; Schack H Internationales Zivilver-fahrensrecht 2010 273 n. 795 et seq.; Geimer R Internationales Zivilprozessrecht 2009 210 n. 427 et seqq.;

Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Be-weisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 91.

69 See para. IV.B above.

67

This question is of great practical importance, as the obligation of a foreign witness to cooper-ate holds good to the extent that the trial court is in a position to enforce that obligation upon the recalcitrant witness.⁷⁰ This is all the more true as, in practice, foreign witnesses, in particu-lar defendants and third parties, are often reluctant to cooperate with the trial court. If the latter, however, is not able to compel the collaboration of a recalcitrant foreign witness, the transfer of the respective evidence is not possible. In this event, the trial court has no other option, but to try to obtain the evidence through channels of international judicial assistance. Needless to say, the question as to the admissibility of compulsion becomes obsolete in cases where the foreign witness is under no obligation to cooperate with the trial court.

This subchapter deals first with the different types of coercive measures as well as their im-pacts on foreign territory. It then examines their admissibility under public international law, in other words, their relation to the sovereignty of the foreign state, and investigates to what ex-tent, if at all, a trial court may compel foreign witnesses to collaborate.⁷¹

2. Types and Impacts of Measures of Compulsion

With regard to coercive measures, one distinguishes between direct and indirect compulsion.

Direct compulsion includes measures that are aimed either at the assets of the recalcitrant for-eign witness, by imposition of a fine, or at the witness himself, for example, by means of con-finement for contempt of court. By contrast, indirect compulsion can be equated with conse-quences of a merely procedural nature.⁷² Here, an uncooperative litigant may, for instance, be sanctioned with the dismissal of his claim.⁷³

The impacts of coercive measures are either limited to the jurisdiction of the trial court, or they extend to foreign states. The effects of measures of indirect compulsion are confined to the state of the trial court. By contrast, direct compulsion may take effect either in the jurisdiction of the trial court,⁷⁴ or in a foreign state.⁷⁵

70 Müller A Grenzüberschreitende Beweisaufnahme im Europäischen Justizraum 2004 150; Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Ausland im deutschen Zivilprozess 1996 156.

71 Once again, the following comments focus on the relevant discussion in Germany. See also fn. 35.

72 In German, so-called “Prozessnachteile”.

73 Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Be-weisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 92.

74 This is, for instance, the case where assets of the foreign witness, which are seized for a fine imposed by the trial court, are located in the latter’s jurisdiction.

75 This applies, for example, where the assets of the foreign witness are situated outside the state of the trial court.

68

3. Measures of Compulsion and Sovereignty

It is well established that under public international law, a state is not allowed to apply direct compulsion on foreign territory. This holds true not only for cases where a trial court performs a judicial act in a foreign state, but also with regard to a transfer of foreign evidence, that is, where the said court does not become physically active on foreign territory. Consequently, for-eign soverfor-eignty is infringed where the trial court uses direct compulsion which takes effect abroad.⁷⁶

With regard to direct compulsion of which the impact is limited to the jurisdiction of the trial court, it is the prevailing view that a trial court is allowed to use such measures.⁷⁷ In contrast, Leipold argues that the mere threat of direct compulsion puts pressure on the foreign witness and that such pressure takes effect in the foreign state. Accordingly, Leipold considers the use of direct compulsion by the trial court, be it limited to the state of the trial court or not, as vio-lation of foreign sovereignty.⁷⁸Stadler maintains that the sovereignty of a state not only in-cludes its territorial integrity, but also the protection of the state’s nationals against acts of other states. In this context, she holds that in case of indirect compulsion, the foreign litigant bears the normal risk of losing a case and can decide freely, that is, without the pressure of the trial court, whether he procures the evidence, or whether he accepts the possible procedural conse-quences when not complying with an order for a transfer of foreign evidence. Accordingly, Stadler qualifies the use of indirect compulsion as not being a violation of foreign sovereignty as the trial court does not apply any pressure or compulsion towards the foreign litigant. Where the trial court, however, uses direct compulsion, the foreign witness has, in the opinion of Stadler, no real choice between giving in to the court order and, if not doing so, accepting the

76 See, amongst others, Bertele J Souveränität und Verfahrensrecht: Eine Untersuchung der aus dem Völkerrecht ableitbaren Grenzen staatlicher extraterritorialer Jurisdiktion im Verfahrensrecht 1998 82; Müller A Grenz-überschreitende Beweisaufnahme im Europäischen Justizraum 2004 150; Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Aus-land im deutschen Zivilprozess 1996 151, 156; Eschenfelder ED Beweiserhebung im Ausland und ihre Ver-wertung im inländischen Zivilprozess: Zur Bedeutung des US-amerikanischen discovery-Verfahrens für das deutsche Erkenntnisverfahren 2002 72; Pfeiffer T ʻInternationale Zusammenarbeit bei der Vornahme inner-staatlicher Rechtshandlungen – International cooperation in the making of interior jurisdictional measuresʼ in Gilles P (ed) Transnationales Prozeßrecht – Transnational Aspects of Procedural Law 199590.

77 See, amongst others, Müller A Grenzüberschreitende Beweisaufnahme im Europäischen Justizraum 2004 151;

Geimer E Internationale Beweisaufnahme 1998 29; Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deut-schen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Beweisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechts-hilfeweges 2000 93; Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Ausland im deutschen Zivilprozess 1996 157; Geimer R ʻVerfassung, Völkerrecht und Internationales Zivilverfahrensrechtʼ 1992 Zeitschrift für Europarecht, Interna-tionales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung 337.

78 Leipold D Lex fori, Souveränität, Discovery: Grundfragen des Internationalen Zivilprozeßrechts 198951. See also Gottwald P ʻGrenzen zivilgerichtlicher Massnahmen mit Auslandswirkungʼ in Lindacher WF et al (eds) Festschrift für Walther J. Habscheid 1989 127 et seq.

69

respective coercive measure. In this regard, Stadler argues that the trial court compels the for-eign witness to perform actions on forfor-eign territory which such court could not have taken without violating foreign sovereignty. According to Stadler, however, not all direct coercive measures interfere with public international law, but only those which, from the perspective of the trial court, aim at penalising the foreign witness for not complying with the court order. In contrast, measures that serve the purpose of concluding the proceedings and not as punishment or enforcement of procedural duties, do, according to Stadler, not infringe foreign sovereign-ty.⁷⁹

Neither Leipold’s or Stadler’s position is fully convincing. With regard to the former, one has to keep in mind that the use of direct compulsion limited to the trial court’s jurisdiction is of a purely domestic nature. The threat of compulsion occurs in the state of the trial court. The same holds true for the execution of the respective court order which can only be enforced within that court’s jurisdiction. Following Leipold’s approach would furthermore impair the equal fighting chances between domestic and foreign litigants, as only the former could be compelled to collaborate with the trial court. Such unequal treatment, however, should be avoided.⁸⁰ Stadler’s differentiation regarding direct coercive measures appears to be rather artificial, as a respective court order always includes the court’s intention to enforce the procedural duties of the foreign witness in case he fails to comply with the court’s request.

Measures of indirect compulsion do not interfere with the sovereignty of the state where the foreign litigant is domiciled and are thus compatible with public international law.⁸¹ As has been noted above, the impacts of such measures are limited to the jurisdiction of the trial court.

Moreover, such measures result from the procedural relation between the trial court and the foreign litigant, in other words, from a relation that is of a purely domestic nature.

79 Stadler A Der Schutz des Unternehmensgeheimnisses im deutschen und US-amerikanischen Zivilprozess und im Rechtshilfeverfahren 1989 288 et seqq., 298 et seqq.; Stadler A ʻ§ 363ʼ in Musielak H-J (ed) Kommentar zur Zivilprozessordnung mit Gerichtsverfassungsgesetz 2012 1255 n. 12.

80 Cf. also Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Beweisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 93; Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Ausland im deutschen Zivilprozess 1996 152.

81 See, amongst others, Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Beweisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 92; Müller A Grenzüberschreitende Beweisaufnahme im Europäischen Justizraum 2004 152; Geimer E Internationale Be-weisaufnahme 1998 26 et seq.; Leipold D Lex fori, Souveränität, Discovery: Grundfragen des Internationalen Zivilprozeßrechts 1989 65 et seq.; Eschenfelder ED Beweiserhebung im Ausland und ihre Verwertung im in-ländischen Zivilprozess: Zur Bedeutung des US-amerikanischen discovery-Verfahrens für das deutsche Er-kenntnisverfahren 2002 72; Pfeiffer T ʻInternationale Zusammenarbeit bei der Vornahme innerstaatlicher Rechtshandlungen – International cooperation in the making of interior jurisdictional measuresʼ in Gilles P (ed) Transnationales Prozeßrecht – Transnational Aspects of Procedural Law 1995 89 et seq. See also Stadler’s mentioned argument with regard to measures with direct compulsion.

70

4. Measures of Compulsion towards Foreign Litigants

In the light of the above, it becomes evident that under public international law, the measures of compulsion that a trial court may apply towards foreign litigants are twofold: measures of direct compulsion, provided they do not take effect outside the state of the trial court, and measures of indirect compulsion.⁸² Since the use of these measures is based on the procedural link between the trial court and the foreign litigant, they can be applied with regard to a foreign litigant having the same nationality as the state of the trial court as well as a party having a dif-ferent nationality. The admissibility of such measures of compulsion, be they direct or indirect, ultimately serve the purpose of guaranteeing the equal fighting chances between domestic and foreign litigants.⁸³

From a practical point of view, the use of direct compulsion limited to the state of the trial court only makes sense if the foreign witness has assets in such state that can be seized once he fails to collaborate with the trial court.

5. Measures of Compulsion towards Foreign Third Parties

As has been explained earlier,⁸⁴ the use of direct compulsion taking effect outside the state of the trial court interferes with the sovereignty of the foreign state. This also holds true with re-gard to foreign third parties. Compared to a foreign litigant, the coercive measures the trial court may apply towards a foreign third party are more restricted. This follows from the fact that the latter is not party to the proceedings. Consequently, there is no procedural relation be-tween the trial court and the foreign third party. The impacts of this are twofold: first, the trial court cannot apply any indirect compulsion towards foreign non-party witnesses, as such com-pulsion requires a procedural relation. Second, the use of direct comcom-pulsion limited to the state

82 See, amongst others Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Beweisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 93 et seq.; Küttler A Das Erlangen von Beweisen in den USA zur Verwertung im deutschen Zivilprozeß 2007 129 et seq.; Pfeiffer T ʻInternationale Zusammenarbeit bei der Vornahme innerstaatlicher Rechtshandlungen – International coope-ration in the making of interior jurisdictional measuresʼ in Gilles P (ed) Transnationales Prozeßrecht – Trans-national Aspects of Procedural Law 1995 89 et seq. Cf. also Federal Office of Justice InterTrans-national Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters Guidelines (3rd ed 2003; last updated in July 2005) http://www.rhf.admin.ch/etc/medialib/data/rhf.Par.0064.File.tmp/wegl-ziv-e.pdf 23 (date of use: 31 January 2013); Meier Beweisübereinkommen 62; Meier I ‘“Swiss-Worldwide-Mareva” im Scheidungsprozess?’ in Meier I and Siehr K (eds) Rechtskollisionen: Festschrift für Anton Heini zum 65. Geburtstag 280.

83 Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Ausland im deutschen Zivilprozess 1996151; Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Be-weisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der BeBe-weisbeschaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 93. See also Meier AL Die Anwendung des Haager Beweisüberein-kommens in der Schweiz unter besonderer Berücksichtigung der Beweisaufname für U.S.-amerikanische Zivil-prozesse 1999 62.

84 Cf. para. IV.C.3.

71

of the trial court cannot be founded on a procedural link. Instead, the criterion to be considered is the personal sovereignty of the state where the trial court is situated. As the personal sover-eignty only extends to individuals having the same nationality as the state of the trial court, there are differences in approach regarding the use of direct compulsion (taking effect in the trial court’s jurisdiction) depending on the nationality of the foreign third party. While a trial court may apply direct measures towards non-party witnesses having the same nationality as the trial court, the use of such compulsion regarding third parties with another nationality is not compatible with public international law.⁸⁵

The preceding conclusion is consistent with the aforementioned obligations of foreign third parties to collaborate with the trial court in the course of a transfer of foreign evidence, as the use of compulsion requires a respective obligation to cooperate. In other words, where there is no respective obligation of the foreign non-party witness, the trial court cannot compel him to collaborate. As in the case of foreign litigants,⁸⁶ the use of indirect compulsion towards third parties makes sense only if the latter have assets in the trial court’s jurisdiction.

6. Summary

In the light of the above, the following picture emerges regarding the admissibility of an order of the trial court for a transfer of foreign evidence under public international law: with respect to foreign litigants, such court order is allowed, provided indirect compulsion or direct compul-sion limited to the state of trial court is applied. Moreover, the trial court may issue an order towards foreign third parties having the same nationality as the state where the trial court is lo-cated, provided it merely uses direct compulsion taking effect in its jurisdiction. By contrast, a court order for a transfer of foreign evidence, which includes direct coercive measures taking effect abroad, interferes with foreign sovereignty, irrespective of whether it aims at foreign

85 See, amongst others, Schabenberger A Der Zeuge im Ausland im deutschen Zivilprozess 199635, 157; Daoudi J Extraterritoriale Beweisbeschaffung im deutschen Zivilprozeß: Möglichkeiten und Grenzen der Beweisbe-schaffung ausserhalb des internationalen Rechtshilfeweges 2000 94; Küttler A Das Erlangen von Beweisen in den USA zur Verwertung im deutschen Zivilprozeß 2007 129 et seqq.; Pfeiffer T ʻInternationale Zusammenar-beit bei der Vornahme innerstaatlicher Rechtshandlungen – International cooperation in the making of interior jurisdictional measuresʼ in Gilles P (ed) Transnationales Prozeßrecht – Transnational Aspects of Procedural Law 1995 91. See, however, Gottwald P ʻGrenzen zivilgerichtlicher Massnahmen mit Auslandswirkungʼ in Lindacher WF et al (eds) Festschrift für Walther J. Habscheid 1989 128; Musielak H-J ʻBeweiserhebung bei auslandsbelegenen Beweismittelnʼ in Schütze R (ed) Einheit und Vielfalt des Rechts: Festschrift für Reinhold Geimer zum 65. Geburtstag 2002 770. See also Federal Office of Justice International Judicial Assistance in Civil Matters Guidelines (3rd ed 2003; last updated in July 2005) http://www.rhf.admin.ch/etc/medialib/data/rhf.Par.0064.File.tmp/wegl-ziv-e.pdf 23 (date of use: 31 January 2013); Meier AL Die Anwendung des Haager Beweisübereinkommens in der Schweiz unter besonderer Be-rücksichtigung der Beweisaufname für U.S.-amerikanische Zivilprozesse 1999 62.

86 Cf. para. IV.C.4 above.

72

gants or foreign third parties. The same holds true for any measures of compulsion towards foreign non-party witnesses having a nationality different from that of the state of the trial court.