Flux européens

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.

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.

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

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.

È da poco uscito il fascicolo estivo dell’annata 2015 di Int’l Lis – Corriere trimestrale della litigation internazionale, diretto da Claudio Consolo.

Nella sezione Cronache, il fascicolo ospita, fra le altre, uno scritto di Albert Henke sulle nuove leggi arbitrali olandese e belga, seguito dalla segnalazione (sotto forma di agili note di commento) di alcune recenti pronunce della Corte di cassazione su temi di diritto processuale civile internazionale, a cura di Elena D’Alessandro, Gina Gioia, Luca Penasa, Monica Pilloni, Marcello Stella, Silvia Turatto e Beatrice Zuffi.

Il fascicolo propone inoltre una nota di Marcella Negri alla sentenza Cartel Damage Claims della Corte di giustizia (21 maggio 2015, causa C-352/13), dal titolo Una pronuncia a tutto campo sui criteri di allocazione della competenza giurisdizionale nel private enforcement transfrontaliero: il caso esemplare delle azioni risarcitorie c.d. follow-on rispetto a decisioni sanzionatorie di cartelli pan-europei.

Si devono invece rispettivamente a Valentina Morgante e a Olga Desiato i commenti a Court of Appeal of England and Wales, 5 febbraio 2015, in tema di immunità giurisdizionale degli Stati stranieri nelle controversie di lavoro, e a Corte d’Appello di Bari, ord. 6 ottobre 2014, sulla incompatibilità con l’ordine pubblico dello Stato richiesto quale causa ostativa del riconoscimento di un provvedimento straniero.

Chiudono il fascicolo la prima parte di uno scritto di Neil Andrews sulle recenti innovazioni conosciute dal diritto inglese dei contratti e della procedura civile e uno scritto di Claudio Consolo intitolato Adesione del convenuto straniero al tentativo di mediazione obbligatoria ex art. 5, co. 1-bis, d. lgs. 28/2010 promosso in Italia e (salvezza dell’eccezione di difetto della) giurisdizione italiana.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Adoption de la proposition de réforme de l’architecture juridictionnelle de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne

Europäisches Zivilprozess- und Kollisionsrecht EuZPR/EuIPR, vol. I, Brüssel Ia-VO, 4a ed., Verlag Dr. Otto Schmidt, 2015, pp. 1456, ISBN 9783504472023, Euro 249.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Rechtzeitig zum Inkrafttreten 2015 wird in Band I der 4. Auflage des Großkommentars EuZPR/EuIPR die reformierte Fassung der Brüssel I-Verordnung, die Brüssel Ia-Verordnung, mit den wichtigen Neuerungen kommentiert. So finden Sie z.B. alles zu den erheblichen Änderungen im Verfahren der Vollstreckung von ausländischen Zivilurteilen, zu dem Recht der parallelen Rechtshängigkeit sowie zu den Möglichkeiten der signifikant gestärkten Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen. Das Lugano-Übereinkommmen 2007, das erst die Anpassung an die bisherige Verordnung vollzieht, weicht damit bereits wieder deutlich vom EU-Instrument ab und wird in diesen wesentlichen Abweichungen behandelt.

Maggiori informazioni sul volume, che ha per autori Stefan Leible, Peter Mankowski, Ansgar Staudinger e Steffen Pabst, sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

“These general terms and conditions will be governed by and construed in accordance with English law. 

With respect to any suit, action or proceedings relating to these general terms and conditions each party irrevocably submits to the jurisdiction of the English courts.”

In Anchorage, the High Court had already dismissed a semantic approach to choice of court agreements in contracts (and choice of court clauses) subject to English law. In Global Maritime Investments Cyprus v O.W., Teare J considered in summary judgment, sought by GMI, whether the aforementioned clause is exclusive, and if not, whether proceedings commenced by GMI in England, block any future proceedings on the same (or wider) contractual issues sought by OW in Denmark. GMI had started proceedings in England following OW’s November 2014 filing for bankruptcy in Denmark. OW had initiated proceedings in Denmark in March 2015. At issue was among others the ‘netting-out’ provisions between parties (effectively, a final settlement of reciprocal dues in different currencies, with derivatives of commodity transactions being the underlying transactions between the parties in this case).

Teare J held that the clause even if not so phrased verbatim, was meant to be exclusive, among others in line with what ‘the reasonable commercial man’ (the bonus mercator, if you like) would have understood the clause to be, especially under the lex contractus, English law. All the more so in light of the use of ‘irrevocably’. At 51 he does offer sound commercial advice to avoid disputes such as the one at issue: it is desirable to employ transitive language, such as in ‘each party agrees to submit all claims’.

I do not think there is justification for the Court not to have considered the impact of the Brussels I (and /or Recast) Regulation on the clause: the judgment keeps entirely shtum about it. Under the rules of the Regulation, all clauses are considered exclusive unless specifically stated. Saying that the clause expressis verbis amounts to non-exclusivity, would be quite a stretch. (I agree it is not clearly worded exclusively – however that is exactly where the Brussels I Regulation is of assistance).

It is quite clear to me that this judgment (issued 17 August – I have delayed reporting for exam reasons) will not be the end of the jurisdictional affair. In particular, parties I am sure will be at loggerheads as to what litigation is to be considered ‘relating to these general terms and conditions’, in particular with OW’s insolvency proceedings in the background.

Geert.

BBVA
Rapprochement des législations
Le délai d’opposition pour contester les saisies hypothécaires dont l’exécution était en cours au moment de la mise en œuvre d’un arrêt de la Cour en Espagne est contraire au droit de l’Union

Zheng Sophia Tang, Electronic Consumer Contracts in the Conflict of Laws, Hart Publishing, 2015, ISBN 9781849466912, pp. 432, GBP 65.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The second edition of this highly recommended work addresses the interaction between conflict of laws, electronic commerce and consumer contracts. In addition it identifies specific difficulties that conflicts lawyers and consumer lawyers encounter in electronic commerce and proposes original approaches to balance the conflict of interest between consumers’ access to justice and business efficiency. The European Union has played a leading role in this area of law and its initiatives are fully explored. It pays particular attention to the most recent development in collective redress and alternative/online dispute resolution. By adopting multiple research methods, including a comparative study of the EU/US approach; historical analysis of protective conflict of laws; doctrinal analysis of legal provisions and economic analysis of law to provide, it provides the most comprehensive examination of frameworks in cross-border consumer contracts.

Maggiori informazioni sono reperibili qui.

Si terrà a Milano il 30 ottobre 2015, nel quadro delle iniziative promosse per celebrare la Giornata europea della giustizia civile, un convegno dal titolo La tutela del credito e la cooperazione giudiziaria in Europa (su altre iniziative legate alla dodicesima edizione della Giornata europea, si veda questo post).

L’evento, organizzato dalla Scuola Superiore della Magistratura – Struttura territoriale di formazione decentrata del Distretto di Milano, dall’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano e dall’Associazione dei laureati in Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Milano, coinvolgerà, fra gli altri, Roberta Clerici, Alberto Malatesta, Manlio Frigo, Luigi Fumagalli e Lidia Sandrini (tutti Univ. Milano).

Fra gli argomenti oggetto dell’incontro, si segnalano la circolazione delle sentenze nello spazio giudiziario europeo secondo il regolamento Bruxelles I bis, l’ingiunzione di pagamento europea, la cooperazione fra autorità di Stati membri diversi nell’assunzione di prove e l’ordinanza europea di sequestro conservativo di conti bancari, istituita dal regolamento n. 655/2014.

Per maggiori informazioni, compreso il programma, si veda qui.

This post has been written by Eva De Götzen.

On 10 September 2015, the ECJ delivered its judgment in Holterman Ferho Exploitatie (C-47/14), a case concerning the interpretation of Regulation No 44/2001 of 22 December 2000 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels I).

More specifically, the case involved the interpretation of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3) of the Regulation, which provide, respectively, for special heads of jurisdiction over contractual matters and matters relating to a tort or delict, as well as the interpretation of the rules laid down in Section 5 of Chapter II (Articles 18 to 21), on employment matters. The said provisions correspond, today, to Articles 7(1) and (2) and Articles 20 to 23 of Regulation No 1215/2012 of 12 December 2012 (Brussels Ia Regulation).

The request for a preliminary ruling arose from a dispute involving a German national resident in Germany, Mr Spies von Büllesheim, who had entered a Dutch company’s service as a managing director, in addition to being a shareholder of that company. He had also been involved in the managing of three German subsidiaries of the company, for which he served as a director and an authorised agent.

The company brought a declaratory action and an action for damages in the Netherlands against Mr Spies von Büllesheim, claiming that he had performed his duties as director improperly, that he had acted unlawfully and that, aside from his capacity as a director, he had acted deceitfully or recklessly in the performance of the contract of employment under which the company had hired him as a managing director.

The Dutch lower courts seised of the matter took the view that they lacked jurisdiction either under Article 18(1) and Article 20(1) of the Brussels I Regulation, since the domicile of the defendant was outside the Netherlands, or under Article 5(1)(a), to be read in conjunction with Article 5(3).

When the case was brought before the Dutch Supreme Court, the latter referred three questions to the ECJ.

The first question was whether the special rules of jurisdiction for employment matters laid down in Regulation No 44/2001 preclude the application of Article 5(1)(a) and Article 5(3) of the same Regulation in a case where the claimant company alleges that the defendant is liable not only in his capacity as the managing director and employee of the company under a contract of employment, but also in his capacity as a director of that company and/or in tort.

The ECJ observed in this respect that one must ascertain, at the outset, whether the defendant could be considered to be bound to the company by an “individual contract of employment”. This would in fact make him a “worker” for the purposes of Article 18 of Regulation No 44/2001 and trigger the application of the rules on employment matters set forth in Section 5 of Chapter II, irrespective of whether the parties could also be tied by a relationship based on company law.

Relying on its case law, the ECJ found that the defendant performed services for and under the direction of the claimant company, in return for which he received remuneration, and that he was bound to that company by a lasting bond which brought him to some extent within the organisational framework of the business of the latter. In these circumstances, the provisions of Section 5  would in principle apply to the case, thereby precluding the application of Article 5(1) and Article 5(3).

The ECJ conceded, however, that if the defendant, in his capacity as a shareholder in the claimant company, was in a position to influence the decisions of the company’s administrative body, then no relationship of subordination would exist, and the characterisation of the matter for the purposes of jurisdiction would accordingly be different.

The second question raised by the Hoge Raad was whether Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation applies to a case where a company director, not bound by an employment relationship with the company in question, allegedly failed to perform his duties under company law.

The ECJ noted that, generally speaking, the legal relationship between a director and his company is contractual in nature for the purposes of Article 5(1), since it involves obligations that the parties have freely undertaken. More precisely, a relationship of this kind should be classified as a “provision of services” within the meaning of the second indent of Article 5(1)(b). Jurisdiction will accordingly lie, pursuant to the latter provision, with the court for the place where the director carried out his activity.

To identify this place, one might need to determine, as indicated in Wood Floor Solutions, where the services have been provided for the most part, based on the provisions of the contract. In the absence of any derogating stipulation in any other document (namely, in the articles of association of the company), the relevant place, for these purposes, is the place where the director in fact, for the most part, carried out his activities in the performance of the contract, provided that the provision of services in that place is not contrary to the parties’ agreed intentions.

Finally, inasmuch as national law makes it possible to base a claim by the company against its former manager simultaneously on the basis of allegedly wrongful conduct, the ECJ, answering the third question raised by the Hoge Raad, stated that such a claim may come under “tort, delict or quasi-delict” for the purposes of Article 5(3) of the Brussels I Regulation whenever the alleged conduct does not concern the legal relationship of a contractual nature between the company and the manager.

The ECJ recalled in this connection that the Regulation, by referring to “the place where the harmful event occurred or may occur”, intends to cover both the place where the damage occurred and the place of the event giving rise to it. Insofar as the place of the event giving rise to the damage is concerned, reference should be made to the place where the director carried out his duties as a manager of the relevant company. For its part, the place where the damage occurred is the place where the damage alleged by the company actually manifests itself, regardless of the place where the adverse consequences may be felt of an event which has already caused a damage elsewhere.

Portnov / Conseil
Politique étrangère et de sécurité commune
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule le gel de fonds de M. Andriy Portnov, l’ex-conseiller de l’ancien président ukrainien Viktor Ianoukovytch

Il 7 novembre 2015, l’Università di Messina ospiterà un convegno dedicato a La protezione dei dati personali e informatici nell’era della sorveglianza globale. 

La giornata di studi sarà articolata in due sessioni, una delle quali dedicata ai profili di diritto internazionale privato. La sessione sarà presieduta e moderata da Nerina Boschiero (Univ. Statale di Milano) ed ospiterà le relazioni di Paolo Bertoli (Univ. Insubria), Livio Scaffidi Runchella e Marcella Distefano (entrambi Univ. Messina).

Il programma completo ed ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

How exactly is the EU bound by public international law? What is the justiciability of acts of foreign sovereign nations in EU courts? To what extent can an individual rely on customary or other sources of public international law, in national courts or at the CJEU?  All of these questions often puzzle non-lawyers (if something is illegal due to a higher rule, how can the lower rule still be in existence) and lawyers alike. At the EU level, things are complicated due to the hybrid (OK: sui generis) nature of the EU, and its complicated relationship with international law.

In Western Sahara Campaign UK, claimant is an independent voluntary organisation founded in 1984 with the aim of supporting the recognition of the right of the Saharawi people of Western Sahara to self-determination and independence and to raise awareness of the unlawful occupation of the Western Sahara. Defendants are the Inland Revenue, challenged for the preferential tariff given on import to the UK of goods that are classified as being of Moroccan origin but in fact originate from the territory of Western Sahara. The second challenge is brought against the Secretary of State for the Environment and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) in respect of the intended application of the EU-Morocco Fisheries Partnership Agreement to policy formation relating to fishing in the territorial waters of Western Sahara.

Essentially, it is claimed that defendants ought not to apply the relevant European agreements for these are, arguably, in violation of public international law. Claimant contends that Morocco has annexed the territory of Western Sahara and claims it as part of its sovereign territory despite decisions of the United Nations and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) that the people of Western Sahara have the right to self-determination. Accordingly it is said that Morocco’s occupation is in breach of the principles of international law and the Charter of the United Nations.

Under EU law, only the CJEU can establish the invalidity of EU law. Blake J decided to send the case to Luxembourg for preliminary review. Defendants opposed such reference primarily because they submit that the issues raised by the claimant are matters of public international law that the CJEU will decline to adjudicate on in the present circumstances. Precedent which they relied on is not unequivocal, however. This case therefore will be an opportunity for the CJEU (Grand Chamber, one would imagine) to clarify the relationship between EU and public international law.

Geert.

Sandra Mantu, Contingent Citizenship. The Law and Practice of Citizenship Deprivation in International, European and National Perspectives, Brill, 2015, ISBN: 9789004292994, pp. 388, 155 Euro.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – In Contingent citizenship, Sandra Mantu examines the changing rules of citizenship deprivation in the UK, France and Germany from the perspective of international and European legal standards. In practice, two grounds upon which loss of citizenship takes place stand out: fraud in the context of fraudulent acquisition of nationality and terrorism in the context of national security. Newly naturalised citizens and citizens of immigrant origin are mainly targeted by these measures. The resurrection of the importance attached to loyalty as the citizen’s main duty towards his/her state shows that the rules on loss of citizenship are capable of expressing ideals of membership and identity, while the citizenship status of certain citizens remains contingent upon meeting these ideals.

Ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili qui.

New Media Online
SERV
L’offre de courtes vidéos sur le site Internet d’un journal peut relever de la réglementation des services de médias audiovisuels