On 17 May, the Centre de droit comparé, européen et international of the University of Lausanne will host a joint conference with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on ‘The UK, Switzerland, Norway and the EU: Cross-border Business Relations after Brexit’. The flyer can be found here. The conference, organised by Professor Eva Lein, intends to provide a forum to discuss the legal uncertainties arising from Brexit with regard to cross-border commercial relations between British, EU, Norwegian and Swiss companies companies.
It will feature the following panels:
Welcome: Eva Lein (UNIL / BIICL)
Panel 1: Trade and Services
Chair: Spyros Maniatis (BIICL / Queen Mary University of London)
Panel 2: Company Law and Insolvencies
Chair: Adam Johnson QC (Herbert Smith Freehills)
Panel 3: Dispute Resolution
Chair: Andrea Bonomi (UNIL)
Dans le prolongement des négociations avec les avocats (v. Dalloz actualité, 13 avr. 2018, art. M. Babonneau ), le ministère de la justice a annoncé que de nouvelles dispositions seront prises au sein du nouveau palais de justice de Paris. Il a ouvert ses portes au public le 15 avril dernier.
Pour apprécier si l’exigence d’avoir séjourné dans l’État membre d’accueil pendant « les dix années précédentes », qui conditionne le bénéfice de la protection renforcée d’un citoyen de l’Union européenne contre l’éloignement d’un autre État membre, est satisfaite, les autorités nationales doivent, à la date à laquelle la décision d’éloignement est adoptée, effectuer une appréciation globale de la situation du citoyen afin de vérifier que malgré sa détention, les liens d’intégration n’ont pas été rompus, estime la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CEDH).
La France a ratifié le 12 avril 2018 le protocole n° 16 à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, déclenchant par la même occasion son entrée en vigueur.
University of Glasgow has announced a PhD scholarship opportunity for the project entitled “The Europeanisation of International Private Law: Implications of Brexit for Children and Families in Scotland” supervised by Professor Janeen Carruthers. The project shall commence in Oct 2018 and will provide (1) a stipend at the RCUK rate (2018-19 rate is £14,777 Full-Time); (2) 100 % tuition fee waiver; (3) access to the Research Training Support Grant. UK/EU and International applicants are eligible to apply.
For more information, please visit the university website, or follow this link: The Europeanisation of International Private Law – Implications of Brexi….
Le Conseil constitutionnel examinait mardi 17 avril la « QPC Frank Berton ».
Le Conseil constitutionnel examinait mardi 17 avril la « QPC Frank Berton ».
It has not been yet noted on this blog that the CJEU has recently settled a classic problem of characterisation that has plagued German courts and academics for decades (CJEU, 1 March 2018 – C-558/16, Mahnkopf, ECLI:EU:C:2018:138). The German statutory regime of matrimonial property is a community of accrued gains, i.e. that each spouse keeps its own property, but gains that have been made during the marriage are equalised when the marriage ends, i.e. by a divorce or by the death of one spouse. According to § 1371(1) of the German Civil Code (Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch – BGB), the equalisation of the accrued gains shall be effected by increasing the surviving spouse’s share of the estate on intestacy by one quarter of the estate if the property regime is ended by the death of a spouse; it is irrelevant in this regard whether the spouses have made accrued gains in the individual case. How is this claim to be characterised? In the course of the German discussion, all solutions had been on the table: some have advocated to classify the issue as a part of succession law only, others have argued for characterising the issuse as belonging to the field of matrimonial property law, and a minority opinion has developed a so-called “double characterisation”, i.e accepting the spouse’s share in the estate only if both the applicable succession and matrimonial property law would countenance such a solution. In 2015, the German Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof – BGH), ruling on former autonomous choice of law rules, had settled the issue in favour of applying the German conflicts rules on matrimonial property, mainly arguing that § 1371(1) BGB determines what is left to the estate after the gains accrued during the marriage have been equalised (BGHZ 205, 289). The Court argued that, for practical reasons, the means that the provision deploys to allocate the gains are found in succession law, but its function is to deal with the dissolution of a marriage because of the death of one of the spouses. If frictions arose between the law applicable to matrimonial property and the rules governing succession – e.g. a widow receiving nothing although the succession law and the matrimonial property regime would grant her a share if applied in isolation –, such problems would have to be solved by the technique of adaptation.
In light of the Europeanisation of private international law, however, it had become doubtful whether this approach would remain valid within the context of the Succession Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 650/2012). A pertinent question was referred to the CJEU by the Kammergericht (Higher Regional Court Berlin). Following the conclusions by AG Szpunar, the CJEU now has decided the case in diametrical opposition to the earlier judgment of the BGH, by adopting a purely succession-oriented characterisation. The CJEU argues that “Paragraph 1371(1) of the BGB concerns not the division of assets between spouses but the issue of the rights of the surviving spouse in relation to assets already counted as part of the estate. Accordingly, that provision does not appear to have as its main purpose the allocation of assets or liquidation of the matrimonial property regime, but rather determination of the size of the share of the estate to be allocated to the surviving spouse as against the other heirs. Such a provision therefore principally concerns succession to the estate of the deceased spouse and not the matrimonial property regime. Consequently, a rule of national law such as that at issue in the main proceedings relates to the matter of succession for the purposes of Regulation No 650/2012” (para. 40). The main reason, however, is to ensure that the European Certificate of Succession remains workable in practice by giving a true and comprehensive picture of the surviving spouse’s share in the estate, no matter whether domestic law achieves this result by inheritance law alone or rather by a combination of matrimonial property and succession law (see in particular paras. 42 et seq.). It remains to be seen how much scope this approach will leave to an application of the European Matrimonial Property Regulation (Regulation (EU) No. 2016/1103), which also covers the liquidation of the matrimonial property regime as a result of the death of one of the spouses. Whereas the law applicable to matrimonial property is, in principle, stabilised at the first common habitual domicile of the spouses, the applicable succession law is changed much more easily – it suffices that the deceased spouse had acquired a new habitual residence before his or her death. Thus, an extension of the Succession Regulation to the detriment of the Matrimonial Property Regulation may disappoint legitimate expectations of the surviving spouse concerning the allocation of accrued gains. The CJEU, however, does not seem to worry too much about this aspect, which was not problematic in the case at hand (para. 41). Future cases may be more enlightening in this regard.
Le lundi 26 mars 2018, la Cour de cassation a rendu public un projet de textes sur le filtrage des pourvois, véritable proposition « clés en main » à l’intention du gouvernement. Une telle réforme serait-elle conforme à la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme ?
Par un avis rendu le 11 avril, le Conseil d’État a précisé qu’un étranger faisant l’objet d’une mesure de transfert qui ne dispose que d’une domiciliation postale peut être assigné à résidence.
On Monday, 23 April 2018, the Erasmus School of Law of Erasmus University Rotterdam (Netherlands) will host a national workshop that takes place within the framework of the research project “Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement” (IC²BE). Funded by the Justice Programme (2014-2020) of the European Commission, the project aims to assess the working in practice of the “second generation” of EU regulations on procedural law for cross-border cases, the European Enforcement Order, European Order for Payment Procedure, the European Small Claims Procedure and the Account Preservation Order. The project has the objective to create a database of national case law. The project is led by the University of Freiburg (Prof. Jan von Hein), and partners are the MPI Luxembourg and the universities of Antwerp, Complutense, Milan, Rotterdam, and Wroclaw.
Four speakers will present the European procedures and share experiences on the application of the procedures in the Netherlands. The speakers are: Prof. C.H. (Remco) van Rhee (University of Maastricht), Kasper Krzeminski (Lawyer at Nauta Dutilh), Jeroen Nijenhuis (judicial officer, board member Royal Professional Organization of Judicial Officers), and Eva Calvelo Muiño (director European Consumer Centre Netherlands). The workshop and roundtable are chaired by Xandra Kramer (Erasmus University Rotterdam).
The language of the workshop is Dutch. Partcipation is free of charge, but requires registration. Further information on the program and on how to register is available here: Workshop IC2BE NL-Rotterdam
Prof. Makridou and Prof. Diamantopoulos are hosting on 23/04/2018 a seminar on the law of evidence in Spain and Greece. The event starts at 09.00 and will take place in the conference room of the Central Library of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.
The program of the seminar is the following:
CHAIRMAN
Prof. Konstantinos Polyzogopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
SPEAKERS
Prof. Fernando Gascón Inchausti, Complutense University of Madrid
Prof. Enrique Vallines Garcia, Complutense University of Madrid
Prof. Kalliopi Makridou, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
Ass. Prof. Ioannis Delikostopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens
CONCLUSIONS
Prof. Georgios Diamantopoulos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki
This seminar forms part of a project initiated by Prof. Makridou and Prof. Diamantopoulos back in 2014. In the course of the past 5 years, the professors have edited three volumes, published in the series ‘Greek and Foreign Civil Procedural Systems’, Sakkoulas Publications.
Vol. 1: Issues of Estoppel and Res Judicata in Ango-American and Greek Law (2014)
Vol. 2: Civil trial of first and second instance according to Swiss and Greek Law (2014)
Vol. 3: Provisional measures in Italian and Greek Law (2016)
Our paper on the innovation principle, with Kathleen Garnett and Leonie Reins is just out in Law, Innovation and Technology. We discuss how industry has been pushing for the principle to be added as a regulatory driver. Not as a trojan horse: industry knocks politely but firmly at the EU door, it is then simply let in by the European Commission. We discuss the ramifications of such principle and the wider consequences for EU policy making.
Happy reading.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU Environmental Law (with Dr Reins), 1st ed. 2017, Chapter 2.
À Paris, la situation s’enlise. Ailleurs, la ministre de la justice a demandé le démontage des box dits barreaudés et « un travail » sur les box sécurisés.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer