Feed aggregator

Rome I Regulation – Commentary, edited by / a cura di Ulrich Magnus, perte Mankowski, Otto Schmidt Verlag, 2017, ISBN 9783504080068, pp. 928, EUR 229.

One of the great steps towards a European Private International Law and for the facilitation of transborder trade is the Rome I Regulation which europeanised the applicable law for international contracts throughout the Union (though except Denmark). This Regulation has to be applied since the end of 2009. It has moderately reformed and replaced the former Rome Convention which had already proven its practical value for over two decades as many national decisions and also judgments of the European Court of Justice evidence. It is therefore high time for a truly pan-European Commentary on the Rome I Regulation which takes account of the European nature of this instrument. This is reflected by the team of contributors that originates from all over Europe assembling first experts in their countries. The editors are Ulrich Magnus and Peter Mankowski who have already edited the well-received pan-European Commentaries on the Brussels I Regulation and the Brussels IIbis Regulation. The Commentary (in English) provides a thorough article-by-article analysis which intensely uses the rich case law and doctrine and suggests clear and practical solutions for disputed issues. It gives a comprehensive and actual account of the present state of the European international contract law. For international lawyers, practitioners as well as academics, it is an indispensable must.

Authors include: Andrea Bonomi, Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa Gonzalez, Richard G. Fentiman, Franco Ferrari, Francisco Garcimartín Alférez, Helmut Heiss, Luís Pietro Rocha de Lima Pinheiro, Ulrich Magnus, Peter Mankowski, Guillermo Palao Moreno, Ilaria Queirolo, Bea Verschraegen, Michael Wilderspin, M.H. (Mathijs) ten Wolde.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 2, chambre 11, 28 octobre 2015

Tribunal de grande instance de Nancy, 9 décembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises du Var, 19 mai 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 4, chambre 3, 14 avril 2016

Our children often hug me goodnight while I am working away at a brief or sitting next to a huge pile of exam papers, waiting to be marked. And especially in the latter case, I confess this is often accompanied by a pint of ale. My youngest daughter the other day told me she had had a dream that night in which I had found a cure for all cancers.

This was the modus operandi: I had spilt said beer (in said daughter’s dream) over the exam papers and by some interaction between beer and paper, the cure had come to me. Eureka! Somehow I have always known beer will save the world…

A warming thought for this chilly season. And one to lift our spirits, hoping for a less challenging 2017.

Enjoy your undoubtedly deserved breaks. Geert.

L’ordonnance du juge des libertés et de la détention (JLD) qui autorise une perquisition sans l’assentiment de la personne chez qui elle a lieu doit être motivée de façon adaptée et circonstanciée. Tel n’est pas le cas si elle se borne à se référer à la requête présentée par le parquet.

en lire plus

Le 21 juin 2016, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) avait conclu, par quatre voix contre trois, à la non-violation de l’article 6, § 1 (droit d’accès à un tribunal), de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme concernant tant l’action dirigée contre la Tunisie que l’action dirigée contre le ministre tunisien de l’intérieur. La CEDH avait estimé en particulier que le rejet des tribunaux suisses de leur compétence pour juger l’action civile de M.

en lire plus

Durant les vacances parlementaires et judiciaires, la rédaction de Dalloz actualité et d’Actuel avocat prend ses quartiers d’hiver pendant quelques jours. Les éditions quotidiennes seront interrompues le 23 décembre 2016 et reprendront le 2 janvier 2017.

D’ici là, n’hésitez pas à nous soumettre vos idées et vos commentaires.

Nous vous souhaitons de joyeuses fêtes de fin d’année. Nous vous remercions de votre fidélité et de vos lectures attentives. 

en lire plus

Prof. Massimo Benedetelli (Professor of International Law, University ‘Aldo Moro’, Bari. ARBLIT, Milan, partner) has just drawn my attention to this piece of his, published in the Journal of International Arbitration 33, no. 6 (2016), pp. 653–686. The abstract reads as follows:

The International Institute for the Unification of Private Law, which recently celebrated its 90th anniversary, published in 1994 the Principles of International Commercial Contracts. Since then the UNIDROIT Principles have been more and more often referred to by arbitral tribunals when settling contractual disputes. As a non-binding instrument of soft law, however, the UNIDROIT Principles may play a very different function depending on whether they are used as “rules of law” for the regulation of a contractual relationship, are incorporated as terms of a contract governed by a state contract law, or are means to interpret and supplement the applicable contract law or the 1980 United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods. Moreover, they can be applied pursuant to an express or implied choice made by the parties, either in the contract or after the dispute has arisen, or when the arbitral tribunal so decides by its own motion. In all such different scenarios different problems may arise for the coordination of the UNIDROIT Principles with sources of state law that have title to regulate the contractual relationship in dispute. Understanding such problems and finding a solution to them is essential in order to avoid the risk that the award may be later challenged or refused recognition. Such understanding could also foster the legitimacy of requests made by a party, or decisions taken by the arbitral tribunal, to apply the UNIDROIT Principles. It is submitted that private international law, taken as a technique for the coordination of legal systems, may offer a useful know-how to parties, counsel, arbitrators and courts for mastering such problems in a reasoned and sound way. This may result in enhancing the effectiveness of the UNIDROIT Principles, while balancing party autonomy with the sovereign interest of states in regulating international business.