En application des articles 1 et 4 de la convention franco-algérienne relative à l’exequatur du 27 août 1964, le juge français saisi d’une demande d’exequatur d’un jugement algérien ne peut pas procéder à une révision au fond de ce jugement en substituant sa propre appréciation de la valeur et de la portée des éléments de preuve à celle du juge algérien.
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Metz, chambre de l'instruction, 15 décembre 2016
En se prononçant pour la première fois sur la comptabilité d’un accord international au regard de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) déclare incompatibles avec les articles 7 (respect de la vie privée) et 8 (protection des données à caractère personnel) de la charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union, les dispositions du projet d’accord sur le transfert des données des dossiers passagers (PNR) signé avec le Canada en 2014.
La situation exceptionnelle d’arrivée massive de migrants par les Balkans fin 2015 est sans influence sur l’application du règlement Dublin III.
Tribunal de grande instance de Lyon, chambre 1, Cab. 01 A, 19 juillet 2017
Tribunal de grande instance de Villeurbanne, 20 juillet 2017
Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 1re chambre C, 20 juillet 2017
Pourvoi c./ Cour d'appel de Cayenne, chambre sociale, 28 novembre 2016
On 24 November 2017 Prof. Dr. Andreas Schwartze from the University of Innsbruck will host the final conference of the EU-project “unalex – multilingual information for the uniform interpretation of the instruments of judicial cooperation in civil matters“.
The conference will discuss best practices of Member State courts, who base their case law on the consideration of judgments given by courts of other Member States, but also “undiscovered disputes” between courts of Member States, where relevant case law from other Member States was ignored.
The conference will provide the occasion for the first meeting of the European Legal Authors Network. The Network has started to form during the unalex project with the objective of developing systematic overviews on the application of the instruments of European private international law, where the case law of the courts of the Member States is comprehensively analysed and conflicting opinions discovered.
Further information will follow within the next weeks. We’ll keep you posted!
The year 2017 marks the 30th anniversary of China’s joining of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH). During these 30 years, huge progress has been made in the area of private international law both in China and around the world, and it has greatly facilitated cross-border movement of goods and capital, as well as interactions among peoples of different nations. At the same time, there are a number of challenges emerging. Different nations should work together, jointly meet those challenges and chart the right course for solutions.
With this in mind, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China and China Society of Private International Law (CSPIL), with the support of the HCCH, intend to jointly host the Global Forum on Private International Law at Wuhan University in Wuhan, China from 22 to 23 September 2017. The Forum will be organized by the Institute of International Law of the University, with the working language of English.
The theme of the Forum will be: Cooperation for Common Progress- the Evolving Role of Private International Law. The Forum will focus on the following topics:
(1) Common progress through private international law over 30 years: China, HCCH and the world;
(2) The Belt and Road Initiative and international legal cooperation;
(3) A global look at recent developments of private international law;
(4) The Hague Judgments Project.
Registration is open until 5 August, 2017. Further details may be found on the website of CSPIL here.
The text of the announcement above is largely drawn from the website of CSPIL.
Thank you Francesca Petronio, Fabio Cozzi & Francesco Falco for flagging the Italian Supreme Court’s judgment no. 16601/2017 of 5 July last. I have tried to locate the judgment in relevant databases but failed – however Francesca et al’s posting gives great overview.
In what is suggested to be a Copernican revolution, the Supreme Court has dropped the Italian legal order’s fundamental objection to punitive damages, which made it near-impossible to obtain recognition and enforcement of in particular US judgments containing such damages. The judgment not surprisingly contains a number of conditions in particular on the excessive nature of such damages.
The judges seem to have been swayed by developments both in Italy (statutory law in places allowing for more than simple compensation of material loss) and US law (truly excessive punitive damages having been reigned in).
Punitive damages are the one example always identified as one of the core applications of ordre public in European recognition and enforcement law. After the Italian example surely this may now be less obvious in many jurisdictions.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.16.
Les restrictions de communication avec son avocat, imposées à un justiciable en raison du secret d’État, violent les dispositions de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
Une aide d’État est prohibée par le droit de l’Union dès lors que les activités qui en découlent sont exercées à des fins économiques, rappelle la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) dans un arrêt du 27 juin 2017, suivant ainsi les conclusions de l’avocat général Kokott.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer