Competencia Judicial Internacional Directa
Proyección de las Normas Internas sobre Competencia Judicial al Plano Internacional
Criterios Generales para Atribuir la Competencia Judicial Internacional Directa
Atribución Abusiva de la Competencia Judicial Internacional Directa
Competencia Judicial Internacional Directa Exclusiva
Forum Non Conveniens
Conflictos Positivos y Conflictos Negativos
Ley Aplicable al Procedimiento Judicial
El Conflicto de Jurisdicción incluye el conjunto de reglas para determinar el tribunal competente para conocer de un litigio que presenta puntos de contacto con varios Estados, así como el conjunto de reglas para definir los efectos jurídicos de sentencias judiciales extranjeras en un Estado. Por ello, podemos dividir el problema en dos apartados:
- Competencia judicial internacional directa que estudia la competencia para conocer y decidir sobre litigios que tienen puntos de contacto con más de un Estado. Ejemplo: Tribunal competente para conocer de la reparación del daño causado por un accidente automovilístico sucedido en España, entre un francés y un belga.
- Competencia judicial internacional indirecta que concierne al control local de las sentencias extranjeras para su reconocimiento y ejecución. Ejemplo: Efectos en México de una sentencia pronunciada en Texas.
Aunque la competencia legislativa y la competencia judicial están desvinculadas, la elección del foro tiene gran influencia sobre el conflicto de leyes:
- Las normas jurídicas aplicables al procedimiento judicial son las del foro
- Las reglas de conflicto aplicables por el juez son las del foro
- El derecho sustantivo del foro puede ser aplicado, en
lugar del derecho extranjero normalmente competente, entre otros casos:
- Cuando la regla de conflicto conduce al derecho sustantivo del foro
- Cuando la regla de conflicto conduce al derecho extranjero, pero este conduce al derecho del foro y éste permite el reenvío en primer grado
- Cuando la regla de conflicto conduce al derecho extranjero, pero este conduce a otro derecho extranjero que, a su vez, conduce al derecho del foro y este permite el reenvío en segundo grado
- Cuando el derecho extranjero va en contra del orden público del foro
- Cuando hay fraude a la ley
- En el caso de Nuevo León, cuando el derecho extranjero no se puede conocer, en un plazo prudente
COMPETENCIA JUDICIAL INTERNACIONAL DIRECTA
La competencia judicial internacional directa es la facultad para conocer y resolver el fondo de un conflicto que presenta puntos de contacto con varios países.
Por regla general, el juez se limita a afirmar o a negar su competencia y, en este último caso, no puede determinar quién es el juez competente. Por ello, se dice que las normas procesales de atribución de competencia son "normas unilaterales".
PROYECCIÓN DE LAS NORMAS INTERNAS SOBRE COMPETENCIA JUDICIAL AL PLANO INTERNACIONAL
Son pocos los sistemas jurídicos que prevén normas de competencia judicial verdaderamente internacionales; por ello, en la gran mayoría de los casos, las normas internas de atribución de competencia territorial se proyectan al ámbito internacional. Ejemplo:
Norma de competencia territorial nacional
Es tribunal competente el del domicilio del demandado, tratándose de acciones personales
Proyección de la norma al plano internacional
Tratándose de acciones personales, es competente un tribunal mexicano si el del domicilio del demandado está en México
CRITERIOS GENERALES PARA ATRIBUIR LA COMPETENCIA JUDICIAL INTERNACIONAL DIRECTA
- Domicilio del actor
- Domicilio del demandado
- Lugar de la ubicación del inmueble
- Lugar donde se produce el hecho generador de responsabilidad civil
- Lugar de la ejecución del acto
- Lugar de celebración del acto
- Lugar del domicilio del propietario del bien mueble
- Voluntad de las partes (“prórroga de jurisdicción”) Nota: algunos Estados exigen una "relación mínima" entre la relación jurídica y el juez elegido como compete
ATRIBUCIÓN ABUSIVA DE LA COMPETENCIA JUDICIAL INTERNACIONAL DIRECTA
Ejemplo: El juez francés tiene competencia judicial internacional directa para conocer de todo controversia en la que participe un nacional francés, sea como actor o como demandado:
- Article 14. L'étranger, même non résidant en France, pourra être cité devant les tribunaux français, pour l'exécution des obligations par lui contractées en France avec un Français; il pourra être traduit devant les tribunaux de France, pour les obligations par lui contractées en pays étranger envers des Français.
- Article 15. Un Français pourra être traduit devant un tribunal de France, pour des obligations par lui contractées en pays étranger, même avec un étranger.
- Un extranjero, incluso no residente de Francia, puede ser demandado ante los tribunales franceses, para la ejecución de obligaciones contraídas por él en Francia con un francés; también podrá ser demandado ante los tribunales franceses para la ejecución de las obligaciones contraídas por él en el extranjero con un francés.
- Un francés puede comparecer ante un tribunal francés en relación con las obligaciones contraídas por él en en extranjero, incluso con un extranjero.
Competencia del juez francés
- Actor francés: un francés puede demandar a un extranjero ante un juez francés (sin importar el domicilio del demandado y sin importar el lugar donde la obligación se contrajo)
- Demandado francés: un francés puede ser demandado ante un juez francés, en relación con obligaciones contraídas en el extranjero
- Competencia judicial internacional directa del juez francés, y
- Negativa de reconocimiento de una sentencia extranjera de la que pudo haber conocido un juez francés (jurisprudencia francesa vigente por más de 80 años, hasta el caso Prieur, como se puede constatar delante)
- Representa una desconfianza sistemática a las jurisdicciones extranjeras
- Niega toda cooperación judicial internacional
- Es discriminatoria, en la medida en que el criterio que define la competencia es la nacionalidad del actor
- Viola el principio de debido proceso
Postura de la Corte de Casación
No obstante las críticas, la Corte de Casación ha sostenido que el Artículo 14 del Código Civil Francés no viola los principios de igualdad y debido proceso protegidos por la Constitución.
"In a judgment of February 29th, 2012, the French supreme court for civil and commercial matters (Cour de cassation) held that Article 14 of the French Civil Code raises no serious constitutional issue, and thus that the question would not be referred to the French Constitutional Council.
France only introduced recently a proper judicial review mechanism. The new mechanism, however, does not enable parties to petition directly the French constitutional court. Instead, parties arguing that a given statute is unconstitutional must obtain leave of the Cour de Cassation to do so.
Article 14 of the Civil Code grants jurisdiction to French court on the sole ground that the plaintiff is a French national. This is widely regarded as an exorbitant head of jurisdiction, except in family matters.
In this case, it was argued that Article 14 violated the principle of equality before the law, and the right to a fair trial. The Cour de cassation rules that no such argument could seriously be made for a series of reasons which all amount to one single argument: the scope of Article 14 is not so wide, and some disputes do not fall within it.
Reasons of the Court
Article 14 neither bars recognition of foreign judgments, nor excludes lis pendens
Although this reason is the last given by the court, it is useful to begin with it. It is true that it used to be the case that Article 14 would not only grant jurisdiction to French courts on the sole ground that a party was a French national, but also bar recognition of foreign judgments. The rule was abandonned by the court in the Prieur case, and it is widely believed that an important incentive for the Prieur courtwas the fear that the European Court of Human Rights would find that the rule was contrary to Article 6.
Now, the only question is whether retaining jurisdiction on the sole ground of the nationality of the parties is acceptable.
Article 14 does not grant exclusive, but rather subsidiary jurisdiction to French courts, and is optional for the parties.
That Article 14 granted exclusive jurisdiction meant that it was a bar to the recognition of foreign judgments. It is not anymore. Today, it is a subsidiary ground of jurisdiction, which means that it only applies when French courts do not have otherwise jurisdiction over a given dispute. Of course, in such cases, the jurisdiction of French courts does not raise any issue, since there is another connecting factor designating France. The problem with Article 14 is precisely when Article 14 is the only ground for jurisdiction.
Article 14 is optional “for the parties”. This statement seems to stem out of a misunderstanding. The French beneficiary from Article 14 may waive his right (see below). But no foreign party was ever asked to agree with jurisdiction arising out of Article 14. As the Court ruled as recently as in 2009, Article 14 is optional for French plaintiffs, not “for the parties”! And this is the right to a fair trial of non French parties which is at stake!
French nationals can waive their right to benefit from it
They certainly can, but we are (and foreign defendants are) really concerned with cases where they have not.
Article 14 does not apply when an international treaty governs the international jurisdiction of French courts
Again, who will ever complain in cases where Article 14 does not apply?
It would be interesting to know whether famous American and German cases on the constitutionality of jurisdictional rules were brought to the attention of the Cour de cassation."
"On May 23rd, 2006, The French supreme court for civil, commercial and criminal matters (Cour de Cassation) held in the Prieur decision that article 15 of the Civil Code is no bar any more to the recognition or enforcement of foreign judgments in France and overruled an 80 year old interpretation of this provision.
Article 15 of the Civil Code provides that French citizens may be sued before French courts. This provision obviously gives jurisdiction to French Courts over French defendants. But the provision was also construed by the Cour de Cassation as a defense against the recognition of foreign judgments delivered against French defendants. From the French perspective, the jurisdiction of French Courts over French defendants was thus exclusive. This privilege could be waived by the French defendant, for instance by agreeing to a jurisdiction clause, or by defending on the merits before the foreign court without challenging its jurisdiction. But when it had not been waived, it was a fortress that could not be defeated. It applied in all almost fields (contract, torts, family law, etc…), except in immovable or enforcement matters. But its scope was shrinking as European conventions and many bilateral treaties excluded its application.
In Prieur, the Cour de Cassation held that article 15 could not be used any more to determine whether the foreign court lacked jurisdiction from the French perspective and thus made its judgment unenforceable in France. In that case, a French citizen born and living in Switzerland had married in Switzerland a woman who was also born and lived there. In 1996, a Swiss court annulled the marriage, and the wife then sought a declaration of enforceability of the judgment in France. The husband challenged the jurisdiction of the Swiss court in the French enforcement proceedings on the sole ground of his citizenship. The court held that it was irrelevant, and that the foreign court having a significant link with the dispute, it had jurisdiction from the French perspective. The Swiss judgment was found enforceable in France.
It is no mystery in French circles that this change is due to a modification of the composition of the court. Several influential French writers have already written that they fully support the change (Bernard Audit in Recueil Dalloz 2006, p. 1846, Helene Gaudemet-Tallon in Revue Critique de Droit International Privé 2006, p. 871. Professor Courbe, however, wrote a critical commentary in Les Petites Affiches, 22 Sept. 2006, p. 10). It is good news for plaintiffs suing French nationals in jurisdictions, which have not concluded treaties with France such as, for instance, the United States. The debate in France is now whether the remaining conditions for the recognition of foreign judgments are sufficient to prevent the recognition of judgments that should not be recognized. The answer is probably yes, but one can wonder which condition could be an efficient bar to judgments made by foreign corrupt judiciaries. None of those remaining in France, it is submitted."
COMPETENCIA JUDICIAL INTERNACIONAL DIRECTA EXCLUSIVA
La regla competencial determina que el juez del foro es el único competente para conocer de una determinada controversia, negando la competencia judicial internacional directa de cualquier otro juez del mundo y negando toda posibilidad a otorgar reconocimiento o ejecución, en el foro, a una sentencia extranjera pronunciada sobre dicha controversia.
Ejemplo: Artículo 97.1 de la Loi fédérale sur le droit international privé (Suisse):
Les tribunaux du lieu de situation des immeubles en Suisse sont exclusivement compétents pour connaître des actions réelles immobilières.
FORUM NON CONVENIENS
Doctrina escocesa, desarrollada y aplicada en Inglaterra y Estados Unidos, conforme a la cual un juez competente puede desechar su competencia si considera que el desarrollo del juicio es más conveniente en otro foro, por ejemplo:
- Si el litigio no tiene una vinculación suficientemente estrecha con el foro
- Si su competencia constituye una dificultad importante para el demandado
- Si su competencia constituye una dificultad importante para los testigos
Es fundamental la existencia de otro foro competente para conocer del asunto.
Se argumenta que se fundamenta en la buena administración de la justicia y que permite adaptar las reglas generales sobre competencia judicial internacional directa a los casos concretos
Supreme Court of Canada
"In separate cases, two individuals were injured while on vacation outside of Canada. Morgan Van Breda suffered catastrophic injuries on a beach in Cuba. Claude Charron died while scuba diving, also in Cuba. Actions were brought in Ontario against a number of parties, including the appellant, Club Resorts Ltd., a company incorporated in the Cayman Islands that managed the two hotels where the accidents occurred. Club Resorts sought to block those proceedings, arguing that the Ontario courts lacked jurisdiction and, in the alternative, that a Cuban court would be a more appropriate forum on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In both cases, the motion judges found that the Ontario courts had jurisdiction with respect to the actions against Club Resorts. In considering forum non conveniens, it was also held that the Ontario court was clearly a more appropriate forum. The two cases were heard together in the Court of Appeal. The appeals were both dismissed.
Held: The appeals should be dismissed. (…)
If the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction because none of the presumptive connecting factors — whether listed or new — apply or because the presumption of jurisdiction that flows from one of those factors has been rebutted, it must dismiss or stay the action, subject to the possible application of the forum of necessity doctrine. If jurisdiction is established, the claim may proceed, subject to the court’s discretion to stay the proceedings on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. (…)
 Given the absence of statutory rules, the Ontario Court of Appeal endeavoured to establish a common law framework for the application of the real and substantial connection test in its important judgment in Muscutt. At issue in that case was a claim in tort. An Ontario resident had been injured in a car crash in Alberta. The four defendants lived in Alberta at the time. One of them moved to Ontario after the accident. The plaintiff returned to Ontario and sued all the defendants in Ontario. Two of the Alberta defendants moved to stay the action for want of jurisdiction and, in the alternative, on the basis of forum non conveniens. They argued that the action should be stayed for want of jurisdiction. They also challenged the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Ontario rules on service outside the province. In their opinion, those provisions were ultra vires the province of Ontario because they had an extraterritorial effect. The Ontario Superior Court of Justice dismissed the constitutional challenge and assumed jurisdiction. The matter was then appealed to the Court of Appeal, which took the opportunity to consider the constitutional issues, although the main focus of its decision was on the content and the application of the real and substantial connection test. (…)
 Although the Court of Appeal acknowledged the importance of flexibility, it stressed that clarity and certainty are also necessary characteristics of the conflicts system. It accordingly developed a list of eight factors to be considered when deciding whether an assumption of jurisdiction is justified:
(1) the connection between the forum and the plaintiff’s claim;
(2) the connection between the forum and the defendant;
(3) unfairness to the defendant in assuming jurisdiction;
(4) unfairness to the plaintiff in not assuming jurisdiction;
(5) the involvement of other parties to the suit;
(6) the court’s willingness to recognize and enforce an extraprovincial judgment rendered on the same jurisdictional basis;
(7) whether the case is interprovincial or international in nature; and
(8) comity and the standards of jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement prevailing elsewhere. (…)
 In summary, the Van Breda-Charron approach offers a simplified test in which the roles of a number of the factors of the Muscutt test have been modified. In short, when one of the presumptive connecting factors applies, the court will assume jurisdiction unless the defendant can demonstrate the absence of a real and substantial connection. If, on the other hand, none of the presumptive connecting factors are found to apply to the claim, the onus rests on the plaintiff to prove that a sufficient relationship exists between the litigation and the forum. In addition to the list of presumptive and non-presumptive factors, parties can rely on other connecting factors informed by the principles that govern the analysis. (…)
 To recap, in a case concerning a tort, the following factors are presumptive connecting factors that, prima facie, entitle a court to assume jurisdiction over a dispute:
(a) the defendant is domiciled or resident in the province;
(b) the defendant carries on business in the province;
(c) the tort was committed in the province; and
(d) a contract connected with the dispute was made in the province.
 As I mentioned above, the list of presumptive connecting factors is not closed. Over time, courts may identify new factors which also presumptively entitle a court to assume jurisdiction. In identifying new presumptive factors, a court should look to connections that give rise to a relationship with the forum that is similar in nature to the ones which result from the listed factors. Relevant considerations include:
(a) Similarity of the connecting factor with the recognized presumptive connecting factors;
(b) Treatment of the connecting factor in the case law;
(c) Treatment of the connecting factor in statute law; and
(d) Treatment of the connecting factor in the private international law of other legal systems with a shared commitment to order, fairness and comity. (…)
 To recap, to meet the common law real and substantial connection test, the party arguing that the court should assume jurisdiction has the burden of identifying a presumptive connecting factor that links the subject matter of the litigation to the forum. In these reasons, I have listed some presumptive connecting factors for tort claims. This list is not exhaustive, however, and courts may, over time, identify additional presumptive factors. The presumption of jurisdiction that arises where a recognized presumptive connecting factor — whether listed or new — exists is not irrebuttable. The burden of rebutting it rests on the party challenging the assumption of jurisdiction. If the court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction because none of the presumptive connecting factors exist or because the presumption of jurisdiction that flows from one of those factors has been rebutted, it must dismiss or stay the action, subject to the possible application of the forum of necessity doctrine, which I need not address in these reasons. If jurisdiction is established, the claim may proceed, subject to the court’s discretion to stay the proceedings on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. I will now turn to that issue.
 As I mentioned above, a clear distinction must be drawn between the existence and the exercise of jurisdiction. This distinction is central both to the resolution of issues related to jurisdiction over the claim and to the proper application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens. Forum non conveniens comes into play when jurisdiction is established. It has no relevance to the jurisdictional analysis itself. (…)
 Once jurisdiction is established, if the defendant does not raise further objections, the litigation proceeds before the court of the forum. The court cannot decline to exercise its jurisdiction unless the defendant invokes forum non conveniens. The decision to raise this doctrine rests with the parties, not with the court seized of the claim.
 If a defendant raises an issue of forum non conveniens, the burden is on him or her to show why the court should decline to exercise its jurisdiction and displace the forum chosen by the plaintiff. The defendant must identify another forum that has an appropriate connection under the conflicts rules and that should be allowed to dispose of the action. The defendant must show, using the same analytical approach the court followed to establish the existence of a real and substantial connection with the local forum, what connections this alternative forum has with the subject matter of the litigation. Finally, the party asking for a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens must demonstrate why the proposed alternative forum should be preferred and considered to be more appropriate." (…)
 This Court reviewed and structured the method of application of the doctrine of forum non conveniens in Amchem. It built on the existing jurisprudence, and in particular on the judgment of the House of Lords in Spiliada Maritime Corp. v. Cansulex Ltd.,  1 A.C. 460. The doctrine tempers the consequences of a strict application of the rules governing the assumption of jurisdiction. As those rules are, at their core, based on establishing the existence of objective factual connections, their use by the courts might give rise to concerns about their potential rigidity and lack of consideration for the actual circumstances of the parties. When it is invoked, the doctrine of forum non conveniens requires a court to go beyond a strict application of the test governing the recognition and assumption of jurisdiction. It is based on a recognition that a common law court retains a residual power to decline to exercise its jurisdiction in appropriate, but limited, circumstances in order to assure fairness to the parties and the efficient resolution of the dispute. The court can stay proceedings brought before it on the basis of the doctrine.
 A party applying for a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens may raise diverse facts, considerations and concerns. Despite some legislative attempts to draw up exhaustive lists, I doubt that it will ever be possible to do so. In essence, the doctrine focusses on the contexts of individual cases, and its purpose is to ensure that both parties are treated fairly and that the process for resolving their litigation is efficient. For example, s. 11(1) of the CJPTA provides that a court may decline to exercise its jurisdiction if, “[a]fter considering the interests of the parties to a proceeding and the ends of justice”, it finds that a court of another state is a more appropriate forum to hear the case. Section 11(2) then provides that the court must consider the “circumstances relevant to the proceeding”. To illustrate those circumstances, it contains a non-exhaustive list of factors:
(a) the comparative convenience and expense for the parties to the proceeding and for their witnesses, in litigating in the court or in any alternative forum;
(b) the law to be applied to issues in the proceeding;
(c) the desirability of avoiding multiplicity of legal proceedings;
(d) the desirability of avoiding conflicting decisions in different courts;
(e) the enforcement of an eventual judgment; and
(f) the fair and efficient working of the Canadian legal system as a whole. [s. 11(2)] (…)
 Regarding the burden imposed on a party asking for a stay on the basis of forum non conveniens, the courts have held that the party must show that the alternative forum is clearly more appropriate. The expression “clearly more appropriate” is well established. It was used in Spiliada andAmchem. On the other hand, it has not always been used consistently and does not appear in the CJPTA or any of the statutes based on the CJPTA, which simply require that the party moving for a stay establish that there is a “more appropriate forum” elsewhere. Nor is this expression found in art. 3135 of the Civil Code of Québec, which refers instead to the exceptional nature of the power conferred on a Quebec authority to decline jurisdiction: “. . . it may exceptionally and on an application by a party, decline jurisdiction . . .”.
 The use of the words “clearly” and “exceptionally” should be interpreted as an acknowledgment that the normal state of affairs is that jurisdiction should be exercised once it is properly assumed. The burden is on a party who seeks to depart from this normal state of affairs to show that, in light of the characteristics of the alternative forum, it would be fairer and more efficient to do so and that the plaintiff should be denied the benefits of his or her decision to select a forum that is appropriate under the conflicts rules. The court should not exercise its discretion in favour of a stay solely because it finds, once all relevant concerns and factors are weighed, that comparable forums exist in other provinces or states. It is not a matter of flipping a coin. A court hearing an application for a stay of proceedings must find that a forum exists that is in a better position to dispose fairly and efficiently of the litigation. But the court must be mindful that jurisdiction may sometimes be established on a rather low threshold under the conflicts rules. Forum non conveniens may play an important role in identifying a forum that is clearly more appropriate for disposing of the litigation and thus ensuring fairness to the parties and a more efficient process for resolving their dispute.
 As I mentioned above, the factors that a court may consider in deciding whether to apply forum non conveniens may vary depending on the context and might include the locations of parties and witnesses, the cost of transferring the case to another jurisdiction or of declining the stay, the impact of a transfer on the conduct of the litigation or on related or parallel proceedings, the possibility of conflicting judgments, problems related to the recognition and enforcement of judgments, and the relative strengths of the connections of the two parties. (…)
(10) Application (…)
(a) Van Breda
 In Van Breda, there is little evidence about the existence of sufficient factual connections. Ms. Van Breda’s accident and physical injuries happened in Cuba. Mr. Berg and Ms. Van Breda were living in Ontario at the time of their trip. After the accident, however, they did not return to Ontario, as they moved first to Calgary and later to British Columbia, where they were living when they brought their action. Ms. Van Breda’s damage, pain and suffering have happened mostly in British Columbia, like most of the treatments she has received. In addition, the evidence is essentially silent about Club Resorts’ activities in Ontario, except on one point which I will address below. Moreover, I do not accept that evidence of advertising in Ontario would be enough to establish a connection. Advertising is often international, if not global. It is ubiquitous, crossing borders with ease. It does not, on its own, establish a connection between the claim and the forum. If advertising sufficed to create a connection with a forum, commercial organizations of a certain size could be sued in courts everywhere and anywhere in the world. The courts of a victim’s place of residence would possess an almost universal jurisdiction over diverse and vast classes of consumer claims. (…)
 The existence of a contract made in Ontario that is connected with the litigation is a presumptive connecting factor that, on its face, entitles the courts of Ontario to assume jurisdiction in this case. The events that gave rise to the claim flowed from the relationship created by the contract. Club Resorts has failed to rebut the presumption of jurisdiction that arises where this factor applies. On this basis, I would uphold the Court of Appeal’s conclusion that there was a sufficient connection between the Ontario court and the subject matter of the litigation.
 Whether the Superior Court of Justice should have declined jurisdiction on the basis of the doctrine of forum non conveniens remains to be determined. Club Resorts had the burden of showing that a Cuban court would clearly be a more appropriate forum. I recognize that a sufficient connection exists between Cuba and the subject matter of the litigation to support an action there. The accident happened on a Cuban beach, at a hotel managed by Club Resorts. The initial injury was suffered there. Some of the potential defendants reside in Cuba. However, other issues related to fairness to the parties and to the efficient disposition of the claim must be considered. A trial held in Cuba would present serious challenges to the parties. There may be problems with witnesses, concerns about the application of local procedures, and expenses linked to litigating there. All things considered, the burden on the plaintiffs clearly would be far heavier if they were required to bring their action in Cuba. They would face substantial additional expenses and would be at a clear disadvantage relative to the defendants. They might also suffer a loss of juridical advantage. But on this point the evidence is far from clear and satisfactory. In the end, the appellant has not shown that a Cuban court would clearly be a more appropriate forum. I agree that the motion judge made no reviewable error in deciding not to decline to exercise his jurisdiction, and I would affirm the Court of Appeal’s judgment dismissing the appeal from that decision.
 In Charron, the existence of a sufficient connection with the Ontario court was hotly disputed. As in Van Breda, the accident itself happened in Cuba. On the other hand, Mrs. Charron returned to Ontario after her husband’s death and continued to reside in that province. The damage claimed by the respondents was sustained largely in Ontario. But these facts do not constitute presumptive connecting factors and do not support the assumption of jurisdiction on the basis of the real and substantial connection test. (…)
 Although whether this factor applies was a very hard fought issue in these appeals, the motion judge’s findings of fact lead to the conclusion that Club Resorts was carrying on business in Ontario. Club Resorts’ commercial activities in Ontario went well beyond promoting a brand and advertising. Its representatives were in the province on a regular basis. It benefited from the physical presence of an office in Ontario. Most significantly, on cross-examination Club Resorts’ witness admitted that it was in the business of carrying out activities in Canada. Together, these facts support the conclusion that Club Resorts was carrying on business in Ontario. It follows that the respondents have established that a presumptive connecting factor applies and that the Ontario court is prima facie entitled to assume jurisdiction.
 Club Resorts has not rebutted the presumption of jurisdiction that arises from this presumptive connecting factor. Its business activities in Ontario were specifically directed at attracting residents of the province, including the Charron family, to stay as paying guests at the resort in Cuba where the accident occurred. It cannot be said that the claim here is unrelated to Club Resorts’ business activities in the province. Accordingly, I find that the Ontario court has jurisdiction on the basis of the real and substantial connection test.
 I also find that the motion judge made no error in declining to stay the proceedings on the basis of forum non conveniens. Club Resorts failed to discharge its burden of showing that a Cuban court would clearly be a more appropriate forum in the circumstances of this case. Considerations of fairness to the parties weigh heavily in the respondents’ favour. The inconvenience to the individual plaintiffs of transferring the litigation is greater than the inconvenience to the corporate defendant of not doing so. On the question of juridical advantage, I refer to my comments about Van Breda. I would add that keeping the case in the Ontario courts will probably avert a situation in which the proceedings against the various defendants are split.
 For these reasons, I would dismiss Club Resorts’ appeals with costs to the respondents other than Bel Air Travel Group Ltd. and Hola Sun Holidays Limited.
Staelens Guillot, Patrick, “Forum non conveniens”. En: UNAM/IIJ, Diccionario Jurídico Mexicano. México, UNAM/IIJ, 2009.
CONFLICTOS POSITIVOS Y CONFLICTOS NEGATIVOS
Toda vez que cada Estado es libre de determinar la jurisdicción y competencia de sus tribunales (ver, por ejemplo, el artículo 13 de la Carta de la OEA), varios jueces del mundo pueden ser competentes para conocer de la controversia. Ejemplos:
Litis: Un divorcio por abandono del hogar conyugal.
Para algunos países, es juez competente el del domicilio del cónyuge abandonado.
Para otros, es juez competente el del domicilio del demandado.
Para otros es competente el juez del domicilio conyugal.
Solución: En la práctica, el actor tenderá a elegir el juez (“forum shopping”), pues todos esos son competentes:
- Qué juez del mundo, por el juego de la regla de conflicto del foro, aplicaría el derecho sustantivo más favorable
- Qué juez del mundo aplicaría el derecho adjetivo más favorable
- Qué juez del mundo tendría, tanto competencia judicial internacional directa, como competencia judicial internacional indirecta
Debido a la diferencia de criterio en que basan su competencia, ningún juez del mundo sería competente para conocer de la controversia. Ejemplo:
Un sujeto expide un título de crédito en México y tiene su domicilio en Nueva York.
Para México, es competente el juez del domicilio del demandado y, por lo tanto, los tribunales mexicanos son incompetentes.
Para Nueva York, es competente el juez del lugar de la expedición del título y, por lo tanto, los tribunales de Nueva York son incompetentes.
Algunos Estados otorgan competencia a sus jueces, justamente, para no dejar a las partes en estado de indefensión (“denegación de justicia”).
LEY APLICABLE AL PROCEDIMIENTO JUDICIAL
La ley del foro es la ley aplicable al procedimiento judicial, como principio universal aceptado desde la época de los postglosadores.
LEYES PROCESALES. PRINCIPIO GENERAL QUE RIGE SU APLICACION EN EL ESPACIO. El principio general que rige la aplicación de la ley procesal en el espacio, consiste en que la normatividad aplicable es la del territorio donde se actúe. Para limitar o excluir el imperio de esta regla, es necesario que exista una disposición expresa que contenga casos específicos de excepción, en los que se autorice la aplicación del derecho extranjero. De modo que si no existen disposiciones legales expedidas por el legislador mexicano, o tratados o convenciones aprobados conforme a la Carta Magna, en los que se contemple que ciertos actos de los órganos jurisdiccionales mexicanos se atengan a las leyes procedimentales extranjeras, éstas, no pueden ser aplicables. Como ejemplo de tal permisión de extraterritorialidad, se puede citar el contenido de la convención de La Haya, en donde se estableció que los jueces de los países que la suscribieron, al remitir una carga rogatoria a los de otro país, pueden pedir que el acto procesal encomendado se lleve a cabo de acuerdo con las leyes procesales vigentes en el país del requerimiento.
[TA]; 8a. Época; T.C.C.; S.J.F.; Tomo VII, Febrero de 1991; Pág. 181
CUARTO TRIBUNAL COLEGIADO EN MATERIA CIVIL DEL PRIMER CIRCUITO. Amparo en revisión 859/90. Alina Castelerio y otros . 16 de agosto de 1990. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: Leonel Castillo González. Secretario: J. Jesús Contreras Coria. Amparo en revisión 209/90. Margarita Rivera y otros. 15 de marzo de 1990. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente Leonel Castillo González. Secretario: J. Jesús Contreras Coria. Amparo en revisión 134/90. Javier Carranza y otros. 15 de marzo de 1990. Unanimidad de votos. Ponente: Leonel Castillo González. Secretario: J. Jesús Contreras Coria.
Conflicto de jurisdicción, Conflict of jurisdiction, Conflit de juridictions
Ejecución de sentencias extranjeras, Enforcement of foreign judgments, Exécution des jugements étrangers
Reconocimiento de sentencias extranjeras, Recognition of foreign judgments, Reconnaissance des jugements étrangers