Feed aggregator

Le Comité déplore les conditions matérielles de détention dans les locaux de police, la surpopulation carcérale, les conditions des transferts et des soins des personnes détenues en milieu hospitalier, et l’insuffisance des places en psychiatrie pour les personnes en soin sans consentement.

en lire plus

Advocate General M Szpunar delivered today his opinion in case C‑422/20 (RK v CR), which is about the Succession Regulation. The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 6, sous a), et l’article 7, sous a), du règlement (UE) nº 650/2012 […] doivent être interprétés en ce sens que la juridiction de l’État membre dont la compétence est censée résulter d’un déclinatoire de compétence de la juridiction préalablement saisie n’est pas habilitée à vérifier, premièrement, si la juridiction préalablement saisie a, à juste titre, considéré que la loi de cet État membre a été choisie ou est réputée avoir été choisie pour régir la succession, deuxièmement, si l’une des parties à la procédure a présenté une demande au titre de l’article 6, sous a), de ce règlement devant la juridiction préalablement saisie et, troisièmement, si la juridiction préalablement saisie a, à juste titre, considéré que les juridictions dudit État membre sont mieux placées pour statuer sur la succession, lorsque ces trois conditions ont été vérifiées par la juridiction préalablement saisie ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=243877&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=499554

Advocate General Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered today his opinion in case C‑289/20 (IB v FA), which is about Brussels II bis.  The opinion is currently available in all EU official languages (save Irish), albeit not in English. Here is the French version (to check whether an English translation has finally been made available, just click on the link below and change the language version):

« L’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement (CE) no 2201/2003 […] doit être interprété en ce sens que, aux fins de l’attribution de compétence, chaque conjoint ne peut se voir reconnaître qu’une résidence habituelle.

Quand un conjoint partage sa vie entre deux ou plusieurs États membres de telle sorte qu’il n’est aucunement possible de considérer l’un de ces États comme étant celui de sa résidence habituelle au sens de l’article 3, paragraphe 1, sous a), du règlement no 2201/2003, la compétence judiciaire internationale doit être déterminée conformément à d’autres critères prévus par ce règlement et, le cas échéant, conformément aux critères résiduels en vigueur dans les États membres.

Dans ce même cas de figure, la compétence peut être exceptionnellement attribuée aux juridictions des États membres d’une résidence non habituelle d’un conjoint, lorsque l’application du règlement no 2201/2003 et des fors résiduels ne fait ressortir la compétence internationale d’aucun État membre ».

Source : https://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=243875&pageIndex=0&doclang=FR&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=499554

Written by Ekaterina Pannebakker

On 1 July 2021, Switzerland, which is the depository of the Lugano Convention 2007, notified the Parties to the Convention of the EU’s refusal to give its consent to the UK’s accession to the Convention. The notification is available on the website of the Swiss Department of Foreign Affairs in several languages. It states the EU is not ‘in a position to give its consent to invite the United Kingdom to accede to the Lugano Convention’, quoting the note verbale received by the depository from the EU on 28 June 2021.

This is the final chord in the consideration of the UK’s after-Brexit application to accede to the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, Lugano, 2007. As previously reported on conflictoflaws (inter alia), the accession to the Convention is subject to the consent of all the current Parties. The EU’s refusal was expected, since the European Commission gave a negative advice to the European Parliament. Noteworthy is perhaps that the Convention does not limit the number of attempts a State can make to accede to the Convention. This means (theoretically) the UK can apply again in the future.

 

This Thursday AG Campos Sánchez-Bordona delivered his Opinion in the case IB, C-289/20. It is another request for a preliminary ruling addressing the issue of multiple places of residence. The recent take on this issue concerned the framework established by the Succession Regulation. In its judgment in the case E.E., C-80/19, the Court of Justice held the last habitual residence of the deceased, within the meaning of that regulation, must be established by the authority dealing with the succession in only one of the Member States.

In the case IB, C-289/20, the Court is invited to interpret the Brussels II bis Regulation in the context of a request for a preliminary ruling originating from the proceedings for a divorce.

The preliminary question reads as follows:

Where, as in the present case, it is apparent from the factual circumstances that one of the spouses divides his time between two Member States, is it permissible to conclude, in accordance with and for the purposes of the application of Article 3 of [the Brussels II bis Regulation] that he or she is habitually resident in two Member States, such that, if the conditions listed in that article are met in two Member States, the courts of those two States have equal jurisdiction to rule on the divorce?

In his Opinion, AG proposes to the Court to consider that under the Brussels II bis Regulation a spouse may have only one place of habitual residence (points 83 et 90). If, in fact, as the preliminary question presupposes, a spouse divides his life between two Member States, it has to be considered that he or she does not have a place of habitual residence within the meaning of Article 3 of the Regulation (point 98). If that leads ultimately to the situation where no forum within the EU can hear the case for a divorce, in order to remedy situations of denial of justice, the jurisdiction might be exceptionally attributed to the courts of one of the Member State where the spouse resides (points 100 and 101).

Instead of providing a summary of the elaborate analysis offered by the Opinion, it seems more meaningful to highlight some of its points.

At the outset, AG observes that the entry into force of the Regulation 2019/1111 will not affect the rules on jurisdiction of relevance for a divorce already provided for in the Brussels II bis Regulation (point 27).

He also seems to reject the idea that notion of ‘habitual residence’ should necessarily receive the same meaning among the EU private international law instruments that elevate the place of habitual residence to the role of a connecting factor (point 39). Scepticism regarding this idea is expressed on several occasions (see, for instance, point 50).

The subjective factor that corresponds to the intention of a spouse might come into play when identifying the place of habitual residence. According to AG, the criteria that normally characterize “habitual residence” may be supplemented – or even replaced – by the intentions of a spouse (point 66).

Under the Brussels II bis Regulation a spouse may have only one place of habitual residence and multiple places of “non-habitual” residence which are, however, irrelevant for the purposes of Article 3 (points 83 et 90).

Ultimately, where no court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Brussels II bis Regulation, including the national rules of jurisdiction that may be of relevance under Article 7 of the Regulation (residual jurisdiction), the courts of one of the Member States where the spouse (non-habitually) resides may exercise jurisdiction in order to remedy situations of denial of justice (points 100 and 101). This consideration seems to draw inspiration from the doctrine of the forum of necessity, even though this notion itself does not appear in the Opinion. Besides, at least to a certain extent the terms employed here seem to echo the wording of Recital 16 of the Maintenance Regulation and Recital 31 of the Succession Regulation, which contrary to the Brussels II bis Regulation explicitly provide for a forum of necessity. In a similar vein, the reference to the “deprivation of the judicial protection within the Union” at point 99 (“ne priverait pas nécessairement les parties de la protection juridictionnelle au sein de l’Union”) may make one think of Article 47 of the Charter.

The Opinion can be consulted here (no English version yet).

Astreinte - Prescription

Vente - Assurance

Assurance - Indemnisation

Getin Noble Bank
Rapprochement des législations
Selon l’avocat général Bobek, les circonstances évoquées par la Cour suprême polonaise ne sont pas de nature à remettre en cause l’indépendance et l’impartialité de la quasi-totalité des juges polonais nommés avant 2018