Feed aggregator

The Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law has just published a symposium issue on the importance of international law and comparative law for the American Law Institute’s new Conflict of Laws Restatement project.  Professors Ralf Michaels and Christopher Whytock have a Foreword entitled Internationalizing the New Conflict of Laws Restatement.  Here is the Table of Contents for the complete issue:

International Conflict of Laws and the New Conflict of Laws Restatement

Donald Earl Childress III

Determining the Territorial Scope of State Law in Interstate and International Conflicts: Comments on the Draft Restatement (Third) and on the Role of Party Autonomy

Hannah L. Buxbaum

The Transnational Case in Conflict of Laws: Two Suggestions for the New Restatement Third of Conflict of Laws—Judicial Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants and Party Autonomy in International Contracts

Linda J. Silberman and Nathan D. Yaffe

How “International” Should a Third Conflicts Restatement Be in Tort and Contract?

Patrick J. Borchers

Marriage and Divorce Conflicts in the International Perspective

Ann Laquer Estin

Children Crossing Borders: Internationalizing the Restatement of the Conflict of Laws

Louise Ellen Teitz

 

 

Cour d'appel de Pau, chambre correctionnelle, 18 mai 2017

In the recent issue of the Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) three articles on private international law issues were published.

Peter Mankowski (The European World of Insolvency Tourism: Renewed, But Still Brave?, NILR 2017/1, p. 95-114) discusses the cross border insolvency tourism under the Insolvency Regulation. He also pays attention to the upcoming changes after Brexit to the Recast Insolvency Regulation.

The abstract of his article reads:

“Insolvency tourism and COMI migration have become key features in modern European international insolvency law. Fostered, in particular, by the ingenuity of the English insolvency industry. Yet it has not gone unanswered. The Recast European Insolvency Regulation introduces a not insignificant number of counter-measures as well as an antidote in the shape of a look-back period. Furthermore, as a prospective aftermath of Brexit, the race is on once more in the field of pre-insolvency restructuring measures.”

 

Marek Zilinsky (Mutual Trust and Cross-Border Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters in the EU: Does the Step-by-Step Approach Work?, NILR 2017/1, p. 116-139)  deals with the question on the implementation of the principle of mutual trust in different EU instruments in the field of cross border recognition and enforcement of judgments. He points out that the EU legislator has chosen different approaches for implementation. Special attention is paid to three instruments: the Brussels I Regulation Recast, the Brussels IIbis Regulation and the Maintenance Regulation.

The abstract of this article reads:

“Mutual trust is one of the cornerstones of cooperation in the field of European Union private international law. Based on this principle the rules on the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments in the European Union are still subject to simplification. The step-by-step approach of the implementation of this principle led to the abolition of the exequatur, often accompanied by a partial harmonization of enforcement law to improve and support the smooth working of cross-border enforcement without exequatur. In this regard, it seems that the Member States still want to have control over the ‘import’ of judgments which results in maintaining the ground for non-recognition and the possibility of relying on them in the Member State of enforcement. This article considers the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition in three areas of justice: civil and commercial matters, family law and maintenance. In these areas the European Union legislator has chosen three different approaches for the implementation of this principle.”

 

Jacobien Rutgers (NILR 2017/1, p. 163-175) discusses the VKI/Amazon Case of the European Court of Justice (Case C-191/15) where the Court gave its interpretation of Art 6(1) of the Rome II regulation and Art 6(1) Rome I Regulation in a procedure started by a consumer organization based on allegedly unfair terms in general terms and conditions of the seller.

The abstract to this article reads:

“In Amazon the CJEU decided which conflict rules applied to a claim in collective proceedings that was initiated by a consumer organization to prohibit allegedly unfair terms contained in the general terms and conditions of a seller. The terms were used in electronic b2c contracts, where the seller targeted consumers in their home country. The CJEU distinguished between the conflict rule concerning collective action, Article 6(1) Rome II, and the conflict rule concerning the fairness of the term, Article 6(2) Rome I. In addition, the CJEU introduced a new test to assess the fairness of a choice-of-law term under Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms. In the note, it is argued that the CJEU’s distinction between those two conflict rules is unnecessary and that the test that the CJEU formulated to assess whether a choice-of-law term is unfair, is less favourable to the consumer than the tests formulated in prior decisions.”

 

The text of the articles is free available on the website of the publisher of the Netherlands International Review.

Thanks go to Marek Zilinsky for providing the above-noted abstracts.

Lounes
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Bot, un ressortissant d'un État non UE, membre de la famille d’un citoyen de l’Union, peut bénéficier d’un droit de séjour dans l’État membre dans lequel ce citoyen a séjourné avant d’en acquérir la nationalité et de développer une vie de famille

En application de l’article 11, § 2, du règlement Bruxelles I, il appartient au juge du fond de rechercher si l’action directe contre l’assureur est possible sur le fondement de la loi applicable à l’obligation ou de la loi applicable au contrat d’assurance.

en lire plus

Professor Hannah L. Buxbaum of Indiana University Bloomington Maurer School of Law hast just released an article adressing the treatment of geographic scope restrictions in state law in the current draft of the Restatement (Third) of Conflicts of Law.

The article begins by analyzing the role of the presumption against extraterritoriality in supplying implied restrictions on the scope of law. It considers the role of the presumption in both international and interstate conflicts of laws, and argues that the Restatement (Third) should differentiate clearly between those two contexts. It then turns to the question whether geographic scope restrictions should properly be considered part of a state’s internal law. The paper analyzes that question through the lens of a common problem: a contract dispute involving a transaction or event that falls outside the scope of the law chosen by the parties to govern their agreement. On the basis of that analysis, it concludes that forthcoming sections will need to address the implications of the draft’s categorical treatment of legislative scope.

The Indiana Legal Studies Research Paper No. 372 is available on SSRN and will be published in the Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law, Vol. 27, 2017.

La CEDH a refusé de considérer que la Bulgarie avait violé l’article 6 de la Convention garantissant le droit à l’assistance d’un avocat dès le début de la garde à vue. L’absence de mise en œuvre de cette garantie n’a pas porté une atteinte irrémédiable à la procédure pénale contre le requérant.

en lire plus

Dans son avis rendu le 16 mai 2017, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) estime que l’accord de libre-échange avec Singapour relève à la fois de la compétence exclusive de l’Union européenne et d’une compétence partagée entre l’Union et les États membres. 

en lire plus

Les États membres peuvent encadrer et limiter la publicité des professions règlementées, telles que les professions de santé, mais une interdiction générale et absolue est contraire à la directive sur le commerce électronique et à la libre circulation. 

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 1re chambre C, 24 novembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 7, 6e chambre de l'instruction, 10 mai 2016

À l’issue de quatre affaires donnant lieu à une procédure d’arrêt pilote rendue le 25 avril 2017, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) considère que le surpeuplement carcéral et les conditions matérielles de détention en Roumanie constituent une violation de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

en lire plus

Une « nouvelle » Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur les infractions visant les biens culturels tendant à la mise en place d’une coopération transnationale pour enrayer le commerce des « antiquités du sang » a été adoptée le 3 mai 2017, et ouverte à la signature lors de la 127e Session du Comité des ministres du Conseil de l’Europe, le 19 mai 2017.

en lire plus

The 59th edition of the Urbino annual seminar on comparative and European Law will run from 21 August to 2 September 2017. The program is available here. For further information, see here.

Si svolgerà ad Urbino, dal 21 agosto al 2 settembre 2017, il 59ème Séminaire de droit comparé et européen. Il programma della nuova edizione è disponibile qui. Per ulteriori informazioni si veda a questo indirizzo.

Sécurité sociale, contentieux