Flux des sites DIP

Il 2 dicembre 2015 si terrà presso il Savoia Regency Hotel di Bologna un incontro dedicato a Il riconoscimento delle sentenze straniere, questioni di ordine pubblico, organizzato dall’ILMA – International Law Meeting Association. 

Interverrà Alessandra Zanobetti (Univ. Bologna).

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Dr. Susanne L. Gössl, LL.M., University of Bonn:

“As a group of doctoral and post-doctoral students with a keen interest in private international law (PIL), we are trying to improve the exchange between young scholars in this field. To further this aim, we have undertaken to organize a conference for all German-speaking young scholars (i.e. doctoral and post-doctoral students) with an interest in private international law.

PIL is understood broadly, including international jurisdiction and procedure, ADR, uniform and comparative law, as long as there is a connection to cross-border relationships.

The conference – which we hope to develop into a recurring event – will take place at the University of Bonn on 6 and 7 April 2017. It will be dedicated to the topic

Politics and Private International Law

– German title: Politik und Internationales Privatrecht –

Choice-of-law rules established in continental Europe have since Savigny traditionally been regarded as ‘neutral’ as they only coordinate the law applicable in substance. However, the second half of the last century was marked by a realisation that choice-of-law rules may themselves promote or prevent certain substantial results. In the US, this has led to a partial abolishment of the classic understanding of the conflict of laws, and to its replacement by an analysis of the particular governmental interests concerned. Other legal systems have also seen traditional choice-of-law rules changed or limited by governmental or other political interests. The conference is dedicated to discussing the different aspects of this interplay between private international law and politics as well as their merits and demerits.

We welcome contributions which focus on classic political elements of private international law, such as lois de police, ordre public or substantial provisions within choice-of-law systems, but also comparisons to methodical alternatives to PIL or contributions discussing more subtle political influences on seemingly neutral choice-of-law rules. Examples range from the ever increasing influence of the European Union over national or international political agendas to questions of ‘regulatory competition’ (which may be relevant in establishing a national forum for litigation or arbitration) or other regulatory issues (such as the regulation of the allegedly international internet). By the same token, international family law and questions of succession are constantly increasing in relevance, the current growth of international migration making it a particularly important field for governmental regulation.

We are glad to announce that Professor Dagmar Coester-Waltjen (University of Göttingen) has accepted our invitation to inaugurate our conference on 6 April 2017. The afternoon will be dedicated to academic discourse and discussion and conclude with a dinner. The conference will continue on 7 April. We plan to publish all papers presented in a conference volume.

We intend to accommodate 6 to 10 papers in the conference programme, each of which will be presented for half an hour, with some additional room for discussion. We will publish a Call for Papers in early 2016 but invite everyone interested to note down the conference date already and consider their potential contributions to the conference topic (in German language).

For further information please visit https://www.jura.uni-bonn.de/institut-fuer-deutsches-europaeisches-und-internationales-familienrecht/ipr-tagung/.

Questions may be directed at Dr. Susanne L. Gössl, LL.M. (sgoessl(at)uni-bonn.de).”

Con una sentenza depositata il 26 ottobre 2015, il Consiglio di Stato si è pronunciato sulla trascrizione, nei registri dello stato civile, degli atti di matrimonio tra persone dello stesso sesso celebrati all’estero, su ricorso del Ministero dell’interno avverso una decisione resa il 23 aprile 2014 dal Tribunale amministrativo regionale del Lazio.

La sentenza impugnata, non riconoscendo alcun diritto alla trascrizione degli atti stranieri di matrimoni same-sex, aveva annullato il provvedimento del 31 ottobre 2014 con cui il Prefetto di Roma aveva disposto l’annullamento di alcune trascrizioni di tali atti, in linea con quanto previsto dalla circolare del 7 ottobre 2014 (su cui vedi questo post).

Ritenendo che la questione attinente all’enunciato potere prefettizio fosse logicamente successiva a quella della trascrivibilità degli atti di matrimonio, il Consiglio di Stato ha proceduto, in primo luogo, all’analisi della questione della trascrivibilità, articolando a tal fine una ricognizione dei principi e delle norme che governano la trascrizione degli atti di matrimonio formati all’estero.

Esso muove dagli articoli 27 e 28 della legge 31 maggio 19995 n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, che designano, rispettivamente, la legge secondo la quale dev’essere valutata la validità sostanziale – ossia le condizioni soggettive – del matrimonio (trattasi della “legge nazionale di ciascun nubendo al momento del matrimonio”), e la legge secondo la quale va determinata la validità formale dell’atto celebrato all’estero (alternativamente, la legge del luogo di celebrazione, della nazionalità di almeno uno dei coniugi ovvero della loro comune residenza al momento della celebrazione).

Lette in combinazione con l’art. 115 del codice civile – ai sensi del quale i cittadini italiani sono soggetti alle disposizioni del codice civile anche quando contraggono matrimonio in paese straniero secondo le forme ivi stabilite – tali disposizioni individuano nell’ordinamento italiano l’unico sistema regolatorio da cui devono enuclearsi gli elementi per misurare la validità formale e sostanziale del matrimonio.

Tale sistema, prosegue il Consiglio di Stato, individua nella diversità di sesso dei nubendi la “prima condizione di validità e di efficacia del matrimonio … in coerenza con la concezione del matrimonio afferente alla millenaria tradizione giuridica e culturale dell’istituto, oltre che all’ordine naturale costantemente inteso e tradotto nel diritto positivo come legittimante la sola unione coniugale tra un uomo e una donna”. Pertanto, il matrimonio celebrato all’estero tra due persone dello stesso sesso risulta sprovvisto di tale elemento essenziale ai fini della sua idoneità a produrre effetti giuridici nel nostro ordinamento, come già precisato dalla Corte di cassazione (sentenze n. 2400/2015 e n. 4184/2012, su cui vedi qui).

Pertanto, il Consiglio di Stato rileva che all’ufficiale di stato civile – che ha il dovere di verificare la sussistenza dell’elemento della diversità di sesso – è impedito di procedere alla relativa trascrizione, difettando la condizione, prevista all’art. 64 del regolamento per la revisione e la semplificazione dell’ordinamento dello stato civile (decreto del Presidente della Repubblica 3 novembre 2000 n. 396/2000), della “dichiarazione degli sposi di volersi prendere rispettivamente in marito e moglie”.

Il titolo rivendicato dai ricorrenti, prosegue il Consiglio di Stato, non può rinvenirsi neanche alla luce di principi costituzionali, enunciati in convenzioni internazionali o a livello europeo.  Il divieto di trascrivere gli atti stranieri di matrimoni celebrati tra persone dello stesso sesso è già stato affermato a più riprese dalla Corte costituzionale (sentenze n. 170/2014 e n. 138/2010; ordinanze n. 4/2011 e n. 276/2010), che ha chiarito come tale divieto sia compatibile, da un lato, con l’art. 29 della Costituzione e, dall’altro, con l’art. 12 della Convenzione europea dei diritti dell’uomo e l’art. 9 della Carta dei diritti fondamentali dell’Unione europea, che sanciscono il diritto al matrimonio (e dunque con l’art. 117, co. 1, Cost.).

Il quadro delineato non sarebbe mutato neppure a seguito della sentenza resa dalla Corte europea dei diritti dell’uomo il 21 luglio 2015 nel caso Oliari ed altri c. Italia (ricorsi n. 18766/11 e n. 36030/11) che, pur riconoscendo la violazione, da parte dell’Italia, dell’art. 8 della CEDU (che garantisce il diritto alla vita privata e familiare), nella misura in cui non assicura alcuna protezione giuridica alle unioni omosessuali, ha ribadito che la disciplina del matrimonio rientra nel margine di apprezzamento riservata agli Stati contraenti.

Da ultimo, con riguardo al motivo d’appello principale – il potere del Prefetto di annullare d’ufficio predette trascrizioni – il Consiglio di Stato svolge dapprima una ricognizione dei rapporti inter-organici esistenti tra Prefetto e Sindaco. A quest’ultimo, quale ufficiale di governo, è affidata anche la tenuta dei registri dello stato civile ed egli è soggetto, nell’esercizio delle pertinenti funzioni, alle istruzioni impartite dal Ministero dell’interno e, per esso, dal Prefetto.

Di conseguenza “deve essere affermata la sussistenza, in capo al Prefetto, della potestà di annullare le trascrizioni in questione, quale potere compreso certamente, ancorché implicitamente, nelle funzioni di direzione, sostituzione e vigilanza attribuitegli dall’ordinamento nella materia in discussione”. Tanto più che, conclude il Consiglio di Stato, “l’esigenza del controllo giurisdizionale … si rivela del tutto recessiva (se non inesistente), a fronte di atti inidonei a costituire lo stato delle persone ivi contemplate, dovendosi, quindi, ricercare, per la loro correzione, soluzioni e meccanismi anche diversi dalla verifica giudiziaria”.

Matthias Weller is Professor for Civil Law, Civil Procedure and Private International Law at the EBS University for Economics and Law Wiesbaden and Director of the EBS Law School Research Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (www.ebs.edu/tcdr).

The enforcement of competition law by means of civil proceedings is becoming more and more important. The European legislator recently has tried to incentivize private enforcement actions by enacting Regulation 2014/104/EU which harmonizes the law of the Member States with respect to cartel damage claims. Courts all around Europe deal with private enforcement claims. In May this year, for the first time the CJEU has dealt with central issues on international jurisdiction according to the Brussels I-Regulation in the CDC-proceedings. As a consequence, this area of law is shifting into the focus of both competition law and civil procedure experts.

Taking this development into account, the German Legal Journal “Recht der Internationalen Wirtschaft” (“RIW”) hosts a conference (conference language: German) that takes a closer look at the current trends in private enforcement of competition law:

Welcome speech

Dr. Roland Abele, RIW

 Introduction to the subject

Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ., EBS Law School, Wiesbaden

Legal framework of the Private Enforcement Regulation 2014/104/EU

Prof. Dr. Heike Schweitzer, LL.M. (Yale), Freie Universität Berlin

International civil procedural law and the CDC-case of the CJEU

Prof. Dr. Matthias Weller, Mag.rer.publ., EBS Law School Wiesbaden

Presumption of loss

Prof. Dr. Stefan Thomas, University of Tübingen

Relationship between joint and several debtors

Prof. Dr. Friedemann Kainer, University of Mannheim

Private Enforcement from the appeal instance

Rechtsanwalt beim Bundesgerichtshof Dr. Thomas Winter, Karlsruhe

 Discussion Panel with experts from legal practice

Chair: Rechtsanwalt Dr. Georg Weidenbach, M.Jur. (Oxford), Latham & Watkins, Frankfurt

We would like to cordially invite you to join our discussion! Detailed information about the conference can be accessed here.

Paolo Bertoli, Diritto europeo dell’arbitrato internazionale, Giuffrè, 2015, ISBN: 9788814208256, pp. 274, Euro 29.

[Dall’introduzione] – L’ordinamento europeo si compone di un insieme di principi e regole funzionali al processo di integrazione giuridica ed economica dei suoi Stati membri. Tali principi e regole limitano e condizionano la potestà legislativa statale e quella delle stesse istituzioni europee, sia impedendo di adottare o mantenere in vigore misure con essi contrastanti, sia incentivando l’adozione di atti funzionali al perseguimento degli obiettivi di integrazione ad essi sottesi. A sua volta, l’integrazione giuridica ed economica europea si fonda sul perseguimento di interessi pubblici e privati strettamente interconnessi […]. Esiste, pertanto, un evidente interesse europeo a un’efficiente disciplina attinente la soluzione delle controversie in materie civile e commerciale. A sua volta, l’arbitrato consiste in un metodo di soluzione delle controversie “attraverso l’intervento di un terzo al quale le parti, nella loro autonomia, rimettono una decisione con effetti per loro vincolanti”. L’arbitrato è un istituto noto in quasi tutti gli ordinanmenti, che – con diversi limiti e in base a differenti concezioni teoriche sottostanti – riconoscono effetti giuridici a un atto di autonon1ia privata diretto a conferire ad arbitri il potere di risolvere una controversia, con effetti vincolanti per le parti. L’arbitrato, in altri tern1ini, è un istituto che trova la propria origine e il proprio carattere giuridico nella circostanza che un dato ordinamento (interno, europeo o internazionale) conferisce tali effetti ad atti di autonomia privata ed è pertanto sempre radicato in almeno un determinato ordinamento. La decisione degli arbitri, a sua volta, produrrà effetti nell’ordinamento in cui l’arbitrato è radicato e dal quale ricava il proprio carattere giuridico in base alle norme proprie a tale ordinamento, e in altri ordinamenti in base a norme uniformi o, in assenza, a quelle interne. […] Dato il crescente utilizzo dell’arbitrato internazionale quale metodo di soluzione delle controversie internazionali in materia civile e commerciale e dato l’interesse europeo alla disciplina di tali controversie, la presente trattazione intende indagare come l’ordinamento europeo regoli o altrimenti condizioni l’arbitrato internazionale.

L’indice del volume è consultabile a questo indirizzo. Per maggiori informazioni sull’opera, si veda qui.

Geert van Calster:

Mutual recognition of same sex-marriage in the UK. Combination of constitutional and conflicts law – a rare treat!

Originally posted on UK Human Rights Blog:

The High Court in Belfast will sit on Monday 9 and 10th November to hear a challenge by a same sex couple now living in Northern Ireland who seek recognition of their English marriage. The current legal dispensation in the Province is that an English same sex marriage is recognised as a civil partnership in Northern Ireland.

The Petition is resisted by the Attorney General and government of Northern Ireland and the (UK) Government Equalities Office (which reports to Nicky Morgan, the Minister for Women and Equalities). It is anticipated that Judgment will be reserved.

View original 557 more words

(I am grateful to Prof. Francesca Villata – University of Milan – for the following presentation of the latest issue of the RDIPP)

The third issue of 2015 of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale (RDIPP, published by CEDAM) was just released. It features one article and two comments.

In his article Reiner Hausmann, Professor at the University of Konstanz, examines general issues of private international law in a European Union perspective addressing, i.a., connecting factors and the questions of characterization and interpretation, in “Le questioni generali nel diritto internazionale privato europeo” (General Issues in European Private International Law; in Italian).

This article tackles general issues in European private international law, and namely issues of connecting factors, characterization and renvoi, to portray, on the one hand, how and in which direction this area of the law has emancipated from the domestic legal systems of the EU Member States and to illustrate, on the other hand, which are the underlying principles that encouraged and made this transformation possible. As far as connecting factors are concerned, the paper shows that the recent development in European private international law – as opposed to the solution in force in many Member States – is characterized by (i) an extension of party autonomy to family and succession law; (ii) a systematic substitution of nationality with habitual residence as the primary objective connecting factor in international family and succession law, and (iii) the promotion of lex fori as objective and subjective connecting factor, in particular in cross-border divorce and succession law. Therefore, the primary objective of the European legislation in the field of private international law is not to identify the closest factual connecting element of a case to the law of a certain country but, rather, to accelerate and improve the legal protection of European citizens and to reduce the costs in cross-border disputes by allowing parties and courts to opt for the lex fori and thus to avoid, to a large extent, the application of foreign law. Moreover, the paper illustrates that while the introduction of renvoi into European private international law by means of Article 34 of the Regulation on cross-border successions appears to be in conflict with the principle of unity of the succession, which is a main pillar of the Regulation itself, the practical importance of renvoi is limited, because renvoi is mainly restricted to cases where the deceased had his last habitual residence in a third State and left property in a Member State. As suggested in the paper, in order to avoid difficult problems of characterization when marriage ends by the death of one of the spouses, it would appear sensible to follow the example of Article 34 of the Succession Regulation in the forthcoming EU regulation on matrimonial property.

In addition to the foregoing, the following comments are also featured:

Arianna Vettorel, Research fellow at the University of Padua, discusses recent developments in international surrogacy in “International Surrogacy Arrangements: Recent Developments and Ongoing Problems” (in English).

This article analyses problems occurring in cross-border surrogacy, with a particular focus on problems associated with the recognition of the civil status of children legally born abroad through this procreative technique. The legal parentage between the child and his or her intended parents is indeed usually not recognized in States that do not permit surrogacy because of public policy considerations. This issue has been recently addressed by the European Court of Human Rights on the basis of Article 8 of the ECHR and in light of the child’s best interests. Following these judgments, however, some questions are still open.

Cinzia Peraro, PhD candidate at the University of Verona, tackles the issues stemming from the kafalah in cross-border settings in “Il riconoscimento degli effetti della kafalah: una questione non ancora risolta” (Recognition of the Effects of the Kafalah: A Live Issue; in Italian).

The issue of recognition in the Italian legal system of kafalah, the instrument used in Islamic countries to take care of abandoned children or children living in poverty, has been addressed by the Italian courts in relation to the right of family reunification and adoption. The aim of this paper is to analyse judgment No 226 of the Juvenile Court of Brescia, which in 2013 rejected a request to adopt a Moroccan child, made by Italian spouses, on the grounds that the Islamic means of protection of children is incompatible with the Italian rules. The judges followed judgment No 21108 of the Italian Supreme Court, issued that same year. However, the ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention on parental responsibility and measures to protect minors, which specifically mentions kafalah as one of the instruments for the  protection of minors, may involve an adjustment of our legislation. A bill submitted to the Italian Parliament in June 2014 was going in this direction, defining kafalah as “custody or legal assistance of a child”. However, in light of the delicate question of compatibility between the Italian legal system and kafalah, the Senate decided to meditate further on how to implement kafalah in Italian law. Therefore, all rules on the implementation of kafalah have been separated from ratification of the Hague Convention and have been included in a new bill.

Indexes and archives of RDIPP since its establishment (1965) are available on the website of the Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale. This issue is available for download on the publisher’s website.

On 25 and 26 February 2016 a conference on the theme “From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure” will be held at Erasmus University Rotterdam. The conference is organised jointly by Erasmus School of Law in Rotterdam (Prof. Xandra Kramer, Alina Ontanu and Monique Hazelhorst) and the Max Planck Institute for European, International and Regulatory Procedural Law in Luxembourg (Prof. Burkhard Hess). The conference will bring together experts in the field of civil procedure and private international law from the European Union and beyond. It seeks to facilitate in-depth discussion and sharing of knowledge, practical experiences, and solutions, with the aim of reinforcing mutual trust and contributing to the further development of European civil procedure.

In the past fifteen years a considerable harmonisation of civil procedure has been achieved in the EU with the aim of furthering judicial cooperation. In recent years, the focus has shifted from minimum standards and harmonised rules to the actual implementation, application, and operationalisation of the rule. Important constituents in this discourse are the interaction between European civil procedure and national law, e-Justice judicial, ADR, and best practices in civil procedure. The conference will focus on how to move beyond common rules and towards best practices that give body to mutual trust and judicial cooperation, which can in turn feed the further development of the European civil procedure framework from the bottom up.

The conference will host four panels:
Panel 1: The need for common standards of EU civil procedure and how to identify them: do we need harmonisation to achieve harmonious cooperation?
Panel 2: Procedural innovation and e-justice: how can innovative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to cooperation in the field of civil justice?
Panel 3: How can alternative mechanisms for dispute resolution contribute to judicial cooperation and what is needed to ensure effective access and enforcement in cross-border cases?
Panel 4: How can the best practices of legal professionals with judicial cooperation be operationalised to improve mutual trust?

Many distinguished specialists (academics, practitioners and policy makers) have confirmed their participation. All those interested in civil procedure, EU law and judicial cooperation are cordially invited to attend.

The program as well as a link for the registration will be posted on this website soon!

On 26 November 2015, the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara will host a workshop in English on Collective Redress through the Voluntary Assignment of Obligations – Recent developments in EU Private International Law.

The main speaker will be Sabine Corneloup (Univ. de Bourgogne – Dijon). The discussant will be Antonio Leandro (Univ. of Bari).

Attendance is free, but those wishing to take part in the workshop are kindly asked to write an e-mail to pilworkshops@unife.it.

Further information available here.

An inevitable consequence of the rulings in Google Spain, Weltimmo and Schrems /Facebook /Safe harbour, is whether courts in the EU can or perhaps even must insist on extending EU data protection rules to websites outside of EU domain. The case has led to suggestions of ‘exterritorial reach’ of Google Spain or the ‘global reach’ of the RTBF, coupled with accusations that the EU oversteps its ‘jurisdictional boundaries’. This follows especially the order or at least intention, by the French and other data protection agencies, that Google extend its compliance policy to the .com webdomain.

The Landgericht Köln mid September (the case has only now reached the relevant databases) in my view justifiably withheld enforcement jurisdiction in a libel case only against Google.de for that is the website aimed at the German market. It rejected extension of the removal order vis-à-vis Google.com, in spite of a possibility for German residents to reach Google.com, because that service is not intended for the German speaking area and anyone wanting to reach it, has to do so intentionally.

I have further context to this issue in a paper which is on SSRN and which is being peer reviewed as we speak (I count readers of this blog as peers hence do please forward any comments).

Geert.

Con la sentenza 26 ottobre 2015, n. 21712, la Corte di cassazione ha avuto modo di pronunciarsi sull’obbligo di applicazione della legge straniera «secondo i propri criteri di interpretazione e di applicazione nel tempo» posto dall’art. 15 della legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato.

La vertenza che ha dato origine alla decisione prende le mosse dal decreto ingiuntivo con cui nel 2003 il Tribunale di Milano ordinava a B.A. il pagamento di una certa somma di denaro a favore di una società che gestiva un casinò con sede in Francia, avendo il primo ottenuto il corrispettivo di tale somma in fiches sulla base di assegni rimasti insoluti. L’ingiunto si opponeva affermando che, ai sensi dell’art. 1933 del codice civile, la società non poteva esercitare alcuna azione per ottenere il credito derivante dal gioco. L’opposizione veniva accolta.

La società opposta proponeva appello e, in tal sede, il giudice di secondo grado riteneva applicabile non già alla legge italiana ma la legge francese, in base all’art. 4, par. 2, della Convenzione di Roma del 1980 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (applicabile ratione temporis in luogo del sopravvenuto regolamento n. 593/2008).

La Corte d’Appello dava così applicazione all’art. 1965 del codice civile francese, così come interpretato dalla giurisprudenza francese. In particolare, il dato letterale della norma citata prevede, similmente all’art. 1933 del codice civile italiano, che non è concessa azione al creditore per i debiti di gioco. Senonché, sul punto, la Cour de cassation, con sentenza 4 marzo 1980, ha precisato che tale norma non trova applicazione se la tenuta del casinò è autorizzata dalla legge e regolamentata da pubblici poteri. Da tale orientamento derivava il potere del casinò di agire per ottenere il soddisfacimento del proprio credito. Conseguentemente il giudice d’appello riformava la sentenza a favore della società amministratrice del casinò.

Il B.A. ricorreva quindi per cassazione lamentando la violazione dell’art. 15 della legge n. 218/1995, in quanto la Corte d’Appello avrebbe applicato l’art. 1965 del code civil in base ad un orientamento che, ancorché effettivamente affermatosi, non trova applicazione qualora il credito vantato non derivi direttamente dall’attività di gioco bensì, come nel caso di specie, da un mutuo erogato al fine di consentire il gioco.

Nella sentenza la Suprema Corte prende inizialmente posizione sulla corretta applicazione dell’art. 4, par. 2 della Convenzione di Roma. Precisa la Corte che, non sussistendo tra le parti un accordo sulla legge applicabile, questa deve essere individuata nella legge del Paese di residenza dell’obbligato alla prestazione caratteristica del contratto, in questo caso consistente nella “dazione delle fiches“.

Continua il Giudice di legittimità argomentando l’ammissibilità del motivo di impugnazione esperito, poiché la violazione di legge può riguardare tanto la legge italiana quanto la legge straniera regolatrice del rapporto, come in passato affermato (cfr. Cass. n. 8630/2005). Prosegue la motivazione ribadendo che “il dovere del giudice di ricercare le fonti del diritto deve intendersi posto anche con riferimento alle norme giuridiche dell’ordinamento straniero, ma non implica l’obbligo di acquisire fonti giurisprudenziali”.

Rilevata l’effettiva presenza dell’orientamento giurisprudenziale richiamato dal giudice dell’appello, la Suprema Corte considera un successivo orientamento giurisprudenziale consolidatosi in Francia per il quale, pur essendo il credito del casinò azionabile se questo esercita la propria attività autorizzato dalla legge, il principio richiamato non si «attagli al caso in cui il debito in questione “se rapporte à des prêts consentis par le casino por alimenter le jeu” (si riferisca a prestiti concessi dal casinò per alimentare il gioco)“. La Corte corrobora le proprie osservazioni citando numerose sentenze della stessa Suprema Corte francese.

La Corte di cassazione conclude quindi con l’accoglimento del ricorso per violazione dell’art. 15 della legge n. 218/1995, non avendo la Corte d’Appello individuato i corretti criteri ermeneutici da impiegare nell’applicazione della legge francese.

It has not yet been noted on this blog that the European Parliament, on 7 October 2015, adopted at first reading a legislative resolution on the proposal for a regulation amending Regulation (EC) No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure and Regulation (EC) No 1896/2006 creating a European order for payment procedure. The resolution as well as the position of the European Parliament can be downloaded here.

Further information is available here.

Thanks to Edina Márton for the tip-off.

Il 9 e 10 novembre 2015 l’Università di Milano Bicocca ospita un convegno dal titolo 1975-2015 – La famiglia e il diritto: 40 anni di trasformazioni.

L’evento si articola in quattro sessioni, dedicate rispettivamente a L’idea di famiglia nel tempo, Centralità e unitarietà dello status di figlio, Il matrimonio e le unioni civili e La famiglia e lo Stato.

La seconda sessione, in particolare, presieduta da Costanza Honorati, propone alcune relazioni di sicuro interesse per i cultori del diritto internazionale privato, affidate a Cristina Campiglio (Univ. Pavia), che parlerà de La filiazione alla luce della CEDU, e a Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona), che interverrà su Legislazioni straniere e riconoscimento dello status di figlio nato all’estero.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Cinzia Peraro, Il riconoscimento degli effetti della kafalah: una questione non ancora risolta, in Rivista di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, 2015, pp. 541-566.

[Abstract] – The issue of recognition in the Italian legal system of kafalah, the instrument used in Islamic countries to take care of abandoned children or children living in poverty, has been addressed by the Italian courts in relation to the right of family reunification and adoption. The aim of this paper is to analyse judgment No 226 of the Juvenile Court of Brescia, which in 2013 rejected a request to adopt a Moroccan child, made by Italian spouses, on the grounds that the Islamic means of protection of children is incompatible with the Italian rules. The judges followed judgment No 21108 of the Italian Supreme Court, issued that same year. However, the ratification of the 1996 Hague Convention on parental responsibility and measures to protect minors, which specifically mentions kafalah as one of the instruments for the protection of minors, may involve an adjustment of our legislation. A bill submitted to the Italian Parliament in June 2014 was going in this direction, defining kafalah as «custody or legal assistance of a child». However, in light of the delicate question of compatibility between the Italian legal system and kafalah, the Senate decided to meditate further on how to implement kafalah in Italian law. Therefore, all rules on the implementation of kafalah have been separated from ratification of the Hague Convention and have been included in a new bill.

The European Commission and the Council of the Notariats of the European Union will host a joint conference on the Succession Regulation. The event will take place in Brussels (Belgium) on 19 November 2015 and aims to provide an opportunity for legal professionals to exchange their views and share their experiences regarding the application of the Regulation.

For further information please visit the conference website.

Thanks to Edina Márton for the tip-off.

Volume XIV-XV of the Spanish journal Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, AEDIPr, devoted to international civil procedural law and private international law, is about to be released. It contains the following sections:

Estudios, in Spanish with a summary in English. This volume includes studies authored by B. Hess, M. Requejo Isidro, L. D’Avout, M. Pertegás Sender, F. Ferrari, J. Álvarez Rubio, A. Dutta, R. Arenas Garcia, P. Jiménez Blanco, A. Espiniella Menéndez, R. Miquel Sala, and D.B. Furnish.

Varia:  short papers by young researchers.

Foros Internacionales, informing and commenting on the latest developments at international fora such as the UE or The Hague Conference, as well as regionally with a particular regard to Latin America.

Textos Legales, both international and Spanish: a very welcome section in light of the seemingly endless activity of the Spanish lawmaker in 2014 and 2015.

Jurisprudencia: the Anuario must be described as the best recueil of PIL Spanish case law; decisions on inter-regional conflict of laws are included, as well as the administrative decisions from the Dirección General de los Registros y el Notario relating to cross-border cases.

Materiales de la Práctica: reports related to PIL from several institutions like the Consejo General del Poder Judicial.

Bibliografía: a thorough review of Spanish books and papers on PIL published in the last two years, as well as a selection of foreign literature.

You can access the whole ToC here: AEDIPr 2014-2015.

The journal is edited by Iprolex and distributed by Marcial Pons.

Si terrà il 27 novembre 2015, presso il Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Ferrara, una tavola rotonda dal titolo La codificazione del diritto internazionale privato e processuale – Sviluppo storico e declinazioni attuali di un’idea.

Moderati da Andrea Giardina (Univ. Roma La Sapienza), prenderanno la parola, fra gli altri, Didier Boden (Univ. Paris 1 – Panthéon-Sorbonne), Sergio M. Carbone (Univ. Genova), Francesco Salerno (Univ. Ferrara) e Sara Tonolo (Univ. Trieste).

Interverranno altresì Antonio Leandro (Univ. Bari), Fabrizio Marongiu Buonaiuti (Univ. Macerata), Lidia Sandrini (Univ. Milano) e Chiara Tuo (Univ. Genova).

Maggiori informazioni, oltre a una selezione di materiali, sono disponibili a questo indirizzo

On 12 October 2015, the Committee on Legal Affairs of the European Parliament held a public hearing on the reform of the Brussels IIa Regulation. A video of the hearing is available here.

Further information on the public hearing, including the programme and the written contributions can be downloaded here.

Thanks to Edina Márton for the tip-off.

Research Handbook on Transnational Labour Law, a cura di Adelle Blackett, Anne Trebilcock, 2015, Edward Elgar Publishing, ISBN 9781782549789, pp. 608, GBP 297.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The editors’ substantive introduction and the specially commissioned chapters in the Handbook explore the emergence of transnational labour law as a field, along with its contested contours. The expansion of traditional legal methods, such as treaties, is juxtaposed with the proliferation of contemporary alternatives such as indicators, framework agreements and consumer-led initiatives. Key international and regional institutions are studied for their coverage of such classic topics as freedom of association, equality, and sectoral labour standard-setting, as well as for the space they provide for dialogue. The volume underscores transnational labour law’s capacity to build bridges, including on migration, climate change and development.

Maggiori informazioni sono reperibili qui.

C-523/14 Aertssen is not a corner piece of the Brussels I jigsaw. Rather, a necessary if unexciting piece of the puzzle’s main body. Aertssen NV, of Belgium, had a gripe with VSB Machineverhuur BV and others, of the Netherlands. Aertssen alleged fraud in VSB’s dealings with the company. It employed a well-known feature of Belgian (and French, among others) civil procedure, which is to file complaint with the investigating magistrate. This launches a criminal investigation, to which civil proceedings are attached.

Aertssen’s subsequent action of attachment of VSB’s accounts in The Netherlands, risked being stalled by the Dutch courts’ insistence that the group launch new legal action in The Netherlands. Aertssen obliged pro forma with this initiation of new proceedings, subsequently to aim to torpedo them. Aertssen would rather the Belgian courts continue with their own, criminal investigation and that action in The Netherlands, other than action in attachment, be put on hold, at least until the Belgian proceedings be finalised.

In essence therefore, the case before the CJEU need to determine whether the Aertssen action ib Belgium is of a ‘civil and commercial’ nature, and if it is, whether the action in Belgium and The Netherlands meet the requirements of the lis alibi pendens rule of Article 27 (old) of the Brussels I-Regulation. the CJEU replied in the affirmative to both.

Precedent for the ‘civil and commercial’ issue, other than the usual suspects, was available per Sonntag, Case C-172/91, where the Court held that civil matters within the meaning of the first sentence of the first paragraph of Article 1 of the Brussels Convention cover an action for compensation for damage brought before a criminal court. In Aertssen, The CJEU used the term ‘private law relationship’ to describe the legal relationship between the parties concerned. Even though, other than in Sonntag where the criminal proceedings were launched by the State prosecutor, Aertssen itself had triggered the criminal investigation, its ultimate aim is to obtain monetary compensation.

The subsequent question was whether per Article 27, lis pendens exists. Reference is best made to the judgment itself for the application of the The Tatry criteria (Case C-406/92): the two cases pending need to involve the same parties, pursuing the same cause of action (the facts and the rule of law relied on) and with the same object (meaning the end the action has in view). The CJEU held among others that the question whether the parties are the same cannot depend on the position of one or other of the parties in the two proceedings.

The remainder of the judgment deals with the meaning of the term ‘court first seized’ in Article 30 of the Regulation, and the relevance of national rules of civil procedure in same.

It is not often that a party aims to torpedo its own proceedings and the procedural intricacies of the case are rather complex. However the CJEU keeps a level head, with in the end transparent results.

Geert.