Feed aggregator

Une équipe de recherche, sous l’égide de la mission de recherche Droit et Justice, s’est penchée sur les procès des terroristes islamistes, en correctionnelle comme aux assises. Une recherche riche qui montre l’évolution progressive de notre justice, sa spécialisation et l’alourdissement des peines. Au risque de passer d’une justice spécialisée à une justice spéciale ?

en lire plus

Generálny riaditeľ Sociálnej poisťovne Bratislava
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
Une réglementation nationale limitant le bénéfice d’une allocation instituée en faveur de certains sportifs de haut niveau aux seuls citoyens de l’État membre concerné constitue une entrave à la libre circulation des travailleurs

Uniwersytet Wrocławski / REA
Recherche, informations, éducation, statistiques
Le Tribunal a commis une erreur de droit en jugeant que l’existence d’un contrat d’enseignement entre une partie et son avocat porte atteinte à l’exigence d’indépendance du représentant en justice devant les juridictions de l’Union

In 2016, an application for the recognition of a judgment rendered by the Southern District Court of New York against the State of Iran, some of its emanations and other non-State parties was filed with a Luxembourg court.

If recognised, this U.S. judgment, which awarded 1.3 billion USD of compensatory damages and 4.7 billion USD of punitive damages to the victims of the terrorist attacks of 9 September 2001 and/or their families, would have enabled the claimants to seize Iranian assets held with a Luxembourg-based clearing house.

As it happens, the application was not not successful.

A recently published Working Paper of the MPI Luxembourg series (also available on SSRN) puts the American decision into a broader context and provides for an in-depth analysis of the grounds for refusal from the point of view of both private and public international law.

The paper takes stock of the attempts made by the families of the victims of the 9/11 terrorist attacks to enforce the New York judgment in Europe.

It brings together four different contributions, focusing on specific aspects of the Havlish saga.

To set the scene for the proper understanding of the Havlish litigations, Stephanie Law analyses the development of the U.S. legal framework on the state-sponsored terrorism exception and its impact on the U.S. proceedings, which resulted in the judgment whose recognition and enforcement is being sought in Europe.

The ruling given in March 2019 by the Luxembourg court is analysed by Vincent Richard and Edoardo Stoppioni, who deal in turn with the arguments set forth vis-à-vis non-State parties and with the use, by the Luxembourg Court, of the law on State immunity as it applies to the Iranian State and its emanations (see further on this judgment Burkhard Hess “Keine juristische Fussnote: Klagen aus 9/11 vor Luxemburgischen Gerichten”, IPRax, 5/2019, p. 442-446).

Finally, Martina Mantovani addresses the parallel attempts made by the U.S. claimants to enforce the Havlish judgments in other European Jurisdictions, which have given rise to ongoing exequatur procedures in England and in Italy.

[2020] EWHC 98 (Ch) Wilson and Maloney (bankruptcy trustees of Michael McNamara),  concerns mostly Article 49 TFEU (freedom of establishment) and Article 24(1) of the Citizens’ Rights Directive 2004/38 (equal treatment). (At 114) the critical question is whether the exclusion of pension rights on bankruptcy is something that can impact on the right of establishment, or is otherwise within the scope of Art 49 TFEU.

The substantive case at issue concerns the inclusion or not of in investment in a certain pension scheme, into the bankruptcy. My interest in the judgment lies in the succinct reference to forum shopping under insolvency regimes.

Mr McNamara was made bankrupt on 2 November 2012 on his own petition, presented that day. Prior to his bankruptcy Mr McNamara had been a high profile property developer operating primarily, if not exclusively, in the Republic of Ireland. But he and his wife had moved to London in July 2011, and the Court accepted that he had moved his centre of main interests (or COMI) from Ireland to England by the date of presentation of the petition.

Nugee J decided to refer to the CJEU for preliminary review (this having happened on 23 January, clearly one of the last if not the last UK reference to go up to the CJEU). Whether COMI was moved for forum shopping purposes is not likely to feature in the eventual judgment – for there does not seem to be any suggestion that the move of COMI to England had been properly established.

Geert.

 

La Cour de cassation nous éclaire dans une affaire mélant concours d’infractions, récidive, condamnations pour partie prononcées à l’étranger et application de la loi dans le temps

en lire plus

Symeon Symeonides posted on SSRN the Annual Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases for 2019, now in its 33rd year.

This is the Thirty-Third Survey of American Choice-of-Law Cases. It was written at the request of the Association of American Law Schools Section on Conflict of Laws. It is intended as a service to fellow teachers and to students of conflicts law, both inside and outside of the United States. Its purpose remains the same as it has been in the previous 32 years: to inform, rather than to advocate. This Survey covers cases decided by American state and federal appellate courts during 2019 and posted on Westlaw by December 31, 2019. Of the 1,404 appellate cases that meet these parameters, the Survey focuses on those cases that may contribute something new to the development or understanding of conflicts law—and in particular choice of law. The Survey proceeds in four parts. The first describes fourteen cases decided by the United States Supreme Court. The second part discusses judgments delineating the reach of federal law in cases with foreign elements (extraterritoriality). The third part focuses on the choice-of-law part of conflicts law, in both interstate and international cases. The fourth part deals with the recognition of sister state and foreign country judgments, as well as domestic and international arbitral awards.

In C-15/19 A.m.a. – Azienda Municipale Ambiente SpA v Consorzio Laziale Rifiuti, Kokott AG opined mid-January. Her opinion relies heavily on the specific provisions which the Landfill Directive 1999/31 includes for what one could effectively call legacy issues in waste management: how does one roll-out stricter requirements, including with respect to polluter pays, unto landfill sites that were already in existence?

I shall not repeat said provisions for the Advocate General does so extensively. Suffice to say that her reasoned roll-out of the polluter pays principle (she puts the onus on the landfill sites’ operators; principles of legal certainty do not allow to charge those having deposited the waste at the site retroactively to pay for longer aftercare) is based to a large degree on the window which the Directive foresaw for Member States to close down sites whom they did not think could be expected to meet the new Directive’s stricter obligations before its lenghthy implementation periods; and on the fact that the operators of these sites, unlike the depositors of waste, can be expected to be properly au fait with its aftercare requirements and hence also of the proper amount of charges to be invoiced to users of the site.

Another good example of EU environmental /waste law not quite being the environmental zealot which its critics often try to make of it.

Geert.

Kokott AG #CJEU C-15/19 https://t.co/ktkeQlqP6X.#Waste, landfill Directive, polluter pays
Application of aftercare provisions to landfill sites in use before Dir entered into force (EIF & passing on increased costs for same to waste holders who used the site before that same EIF

— Geert Van Calster (@GAVClaw) January 16, 2020

Compared to January (with the hearings I had announced here, plus AG Szpunar’s opinion on Rina, delivered on the 14th), February 2020 will be a quiet month at the Court in terms of private international law, with just AG Bobek’s opinion in FX v GZ (case C-41/19) being scheduled for the 27th.

The case concerns both the Maintenance Regulation and the Brussels I bis Regulation, in the context of judicial proceedings instituted in Germany whereby the applicant, residing in Germany, tries to resist the enforcement of a Polish decision to pay monthly maintenance for his daughter.

As grounds for his application, the applicant argues that the defendant’s maintenance claim underlying the Polish decision had been settled by payment (for the record, the Polish judgment was given in 2009; the request for enforcement in Germany was filed in 2016).

The referring court hesitates about its jurisdiction. If the application opposing enforcement made by the applicant constitutes a matter relating to maintenance for the purposes of Article 1 of the Maintenance Regulation, then no international jurisdiction of the court seised results from the Regulation, since the conditions of Article 3 of the Maintenance Regulation are evidently not satisfied.

By contrast, the courts in Poland, where the order was made, would, pursuant to Article 3(a) and (b) of the Regulation, be directly called upon to deal with the applicant’s defence of fulfilment. Conversely, the view that applications opposing enforcement are not matters relating to maintenance within the meaning of the maintenance Regulation is the prevailing opinion in Germany, where it is argued that the objective of an application against opposing enforcement is directed solely against the enforcement itself, which is not covered by the manintenance Regulation.

Should the latter view on the interpretation of the maintenance Regulation be right, the question arises whether proceedings concerned with the enforcement of judgments within the meaning of Article 24(5) of the Brussels I bis Regulation are involved. In this regard, the German court claims that an answer is not apparent from the decisions of the Court of Justice in AS Autoteile Service (case C-220/84) and in Prism Investments (case C-139/10).

At the same time, because both decisions concerned general civil and commercial matters and were delivered before the entry into force of the Maintenance Regulation and the Brussels I bis Regulation – which, according to its Article 1(2)(e), is not intended to cover matters relating to maintenance – the court doubts they are transferable to matters relating to maintenance.

While waiting for AG Bobek’s opinion, I would like to add that another request for a preliminary ruling on the maintenance Regulation is pending (still at an early stage) where its relationship with the Brussels I bis Regulation for the purposes of interpretation is also at stake.

Les cartons ont été faits la semaine dernière. Ce lundi 3 février, les magistrats du parquet de Paris inaugurent leur nouvelle organisation. S’ils sont toujours rassemblés à travers six divisions, de nombreuses sections ont joué aux chaises musicales, non sans susciter quelques inquiétudes.

en lire plus

In an unprecedented manner, the UK has dealt with its problems around Brexit and its relations with the Contracting States to two HCCH Conventions on the international plane. The Depositary (i.e. the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands) has just announced that the UK has withdrawn its instruments of ratification of the HCCH Child Support Convention and instrument of accession to the HCCH Choice of Court Convention, together with its declarations and extension to Gibraltar, which actually never came into effect and were apparently only a backup option to a no-deal Brexit; see our previous posts (“some Brexit news” part 1, part 2 and part 3 and the more recent post “Brexit: No need to stop all the clocks” here).

As stated in the notification, the reason for the withdrawal of the instruments is the following: “Since the deposit of the Instrument of [Ratification and Accession], the United Kingdom and the European Union have signed, ratified and approved a Withdrawal Agreement, which will enter into force on 1 February 2020 (the “Withdrawal Agreement”). The Withdrawal Agreement includes provisions for a transition period to start on the date the Withdrawal Agreement enters into force and end on 31 December 2020 (the “transition period”). In accordance with the Withdrawal Agreement, during the transition period, European Union law, including the Agreement, will continue to be applicable to and in the United Kingdom” (our emphasis).

In its Note, the UK adds that it intends to deposit new instruments of ratification of and accession to the above-mentioned Conventions prior to the termination of the transition period. It remains to be seen whether the UK will submit the same declarations and whether it will extend those Conventions to Gibraltar.

The Depositary’s notifications are available here for the Child Support Convention and here for the Choice of Court Convention.