Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Travailleur indépendant - Définition
Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Indivision - Licitation d'un immeuble
Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Contrats en cours
Procédure civile – Santé publique – Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux.
Association - Action en justice - Procédure civile
I discussed this case with my students the day the judgment came out. Copy of the judgment has travelled with me far and wide. Yet I only now find myself getting round to posting on Anas v Facebook, at the courts at Würzburg back in February. Mr Anas came from Syria as a refugee and took a famous selfie with Frau Merkel. The photo later came to haunt him as fake news sites used it in connecting with accusations of terrorism. Mr Anas thereupon sued Facebook, requesting it to act more swiftly to remove the various content reporting on him in this matter. The Würzburg court obliged. I understand that in the meantime Mr Anas has halted further action against FB which I am assuming includes the appeal which FB must have launched.
Now, the interest for this blog lies not in the issue of fake news, but rather the jurisdictional grounds for the ruling. Mr Anas sued Facebook Ireland, not Facebook Inc. The latter, I would suggest, he might have done on the basis of the Brussels I Recast’s provisions on consumer contracts – albeit that the conditions for that title might not be fulfilled if Mr Anas became a FB user in Syria.
The court did not entertain the consumer title. It did uphold its jurisdiction on the basis of Article 7(2) of the Recast, as lex loci damni. (But without consideration of the Shevill limitation). Awkwardly, it then lest my German fails me, goes on to determine its internal jurisdiction on the basis of German civil procedure law. Plaintiff was domiciled in Berlin; not Würzburg. The judgment therefore turns into the proverbial cake and eating it: Article 7(2) does not just lay down jurisdiction for a Member State: it also identifies the very court in that MS that has jurisdiction. It cancels out internal rules of jurisdiction. With Mr Anas’ domicile in Berlin, Wurzburg as locus damni is not immediately obvious.
German speakers, if I am not reading this right please do comment.
Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.
The Private International Law Group from the School of Law of Carlos III University of Madrid (Universidad Carlos III de Madrid, www.uc3m.es) is delighted to announce its International Congress on matters of matrimonial property regimes and property consequences of registered partnerships (from 16-17 November 2017).
Young researchers are invited to submit their papers about the subject of the Congress. Abstracts, either in Spanish or English (Word format) must be sent to mjcastel@der-pr.uc3m.es (deadline: 30th September 2017), including:
-Name and surname
-Affiliation of the submitting researcher
-Short biographical note (no more than 500 words)
-Title and Summary of the proposed paper (no more than 800 words)
The abstracts will be reviewed by the following Committee:
Alfonso L. Calvo Caravaca, Professor of Private International Law (Carlos III University of Madrid).
Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz, Associate Professor of Private International Law (Carlos III University of Madrid).
Juliana Rodríguez Rodrigo, Associate Professor of Private International Law (Carlos III University of Madrid).
The decision will be notified to the author by 15th October 2017
Successful applicants will present their papers into the Young Researchers Round Table (17th November 2017) and their papers may be published in the Journal Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional.CDT (www.uc3m.es/cdt ).
The organization will not be responsible for the expenses of young researchers’ participation in the Congress.
La compétence du juge français ne peut pas être retenue, au titre du déni de justice, dans l’hypothèse où un juge étranger est déjà saisi du litige, même si une société française détient une partie du capital de la société étrangère contre laquelle l’action est intentée.
Back in March the the Child & Family Law Quarterly together with Cambridge Family Law hosted a conference on the the impact of Brexit on international family law (see our previous post). Some of the academic papers that were presented at this occasion have now been published in a special Brexit issue of the Child & Family Law Quarterly.
Here is the table of content:
L’article 13, point 5, du règlement Bruxelles I, considéré conjointement avec l’article 14, point 2, sous a), de ce règlement, doit être interprété en ce sens qu’une victime disposant d’une action directe contre l’assureur de l’auteur du dommage qu’elle a subi n’est pas liée par une clause attributive de juridiction conclue entre cet assureur et cet auteur.
La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) considère que le Tribunal de l’Union a correctement jugé qu’une initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE) ayant pour objectif d’effacer la dette publique des pays en état de nécessité ne peut être enregistrée.
Les règles de la directive Accueil du 26 juin 2013 relatives au placement en rétention d’un demandeur d’asile pour établir ou vérifier son identité ou sa nationalité ou lorsqu’il existe un risque de fuite sont compatibles avec le droit fondamental à la liberté.
Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 5, 23 janvier 2017
Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 5e chambre correctionnelle, 8 février 2017
Cour d'appel de Versailles, 16e Chambre, 7 septembre 2017
Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 5, 21 février 2017
Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Nancy, 4ème Chambre des Appels Correctionnels, 12 janvier 2017.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer