Feed aggregator

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) rejette la requête du parti national démocrate d’Allemagne invoquant une violation de son droit de recours effectif due au fait que la Cour constitutionnelle fédérale a refusé de reconnaître sa constitutionnalité.

en lire plus

Professor Dr. Carlos Esplugues Mota (University of Valencia) has organized an international seminar on new trends in collective redress litigation that will take place on 25 November 2016 at the University of Valencia (Spain). The seminar will be held in English and Spanish. Topics and speakers will include:

Collective actions in private international law and Spanish legal practice (Prof. Dr. Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Universidad de Vigo)

International Mass Litigation in Product Liability Cases (Prof. Dr. Jan von Hein, University of Freiburg)

Protection of mortgagors (consumers) in the EU (Prof. Dr. Blanca Vila Costa, Universitat Autònoma de Barcelona)

Class actions and arbitration (Prof. Dr. Ana Montesinos García, Universitat de València)

The New European Framework for ADR and ODR in the area of consumer protection (Prof. Dr. Fernando Esteban de la Rosa, Universidad de Granada)

An Approach to Consumer Law and Mass Redress from Civil Law (Prof. Dr. Mario Clemente Meoro, Universitat de València).

The panels will be chaired by Professor Dr. Esplugues Mota and Professor Dr. Carmen Azcárraga Monzonís. Participation is free of charge, but requires prior registration with Prof. Maria Jose Catalán Chamorro (Maria.Jose.Catalan@uv.es). The full programme with further details is available here.

Etat - Fonctionnement défectueux du service de la Justice

Much as expected, the Court has this week confirmed Kokott AG’s views on Article 24(1) and Article 8(4) Brussels I Recast. Please refer to my review of the Advocate General’s Opinion for detail of the case.

A request for voidance of a contract of gift of immovable property, on grounds of incapacity, is not covered by Article 24(1). The fact that the contract for which a declaration of invalidity is sought concerns immovable property is irrelevant to the issue of its validity, the immovable nature of the subject matter of the contract being only of marginal significance in that context (at 36). This does not endanger the ratio legis of Article 24(1): by ruling on the request for the avoidance of a contract of gift on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract, the court before which the dispute is brought is not required to carry out investigations strictly related to the immovable property concerned so as to justify an application of the rule of exclusive jurisdiction provided for in that article (at 37). In the present case, the action in the main proceedings is based on the alleged invalidity of the contractual obligation consisting of the conveyance of ownership of the immovable property, which, provided that the contract is valid, must be, and which was initially, performed in Austria. This therefore establishes jurisdiction for that court on the basis of Article 7(1) a of the Brussels I Recast.

The separate request for removal from the land register of the donee’s right of ownership, in turn is based on the invalidity of the conveyance of ownership and, therefore, on the right in rem relied on by the applicant in the main proceedings in the immovable property concerned:this action is covered by Article 24(1). This latter court may also rule on the request for voidance: there is a connection between the claims pursuant to Article 8(4) of Regulation 1215/2012. Unlike the AG, the CJEU does not add that this possibility for joinder must not be abused, however there is no reason why the prohibition of abuse must not apply to Article 8(4). Given the possibility of joinder, a race to court of course is triggered between, in this case, father and daughter.

Schmidt v Schmidt is once again a useful reminder for courts and notaries alike, not to shy away from contracts, gifts, matrimonial property etc. simply because it involves real estate located elsewhere. Plenty of the legal issues surrounding such constructions can be perfectly dealt with outside the locus rei sitae.

Geert.

In its judgment of 16 November 2016 regarding case C‑417/15, Wolfgang Schmidt v. Christiane Schmidt, the Court of Justice ruled as follows.

The provisions of Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters is to be interpreted as meaning that an action seeking the avoidance of a gift of immovable property on the ground of the donor’s incapacity to contract does not fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of the Member State in which the property is situated, provided for under Article 24(1) of Regulation No 1215/2012, regarding rights in rem in immoveables and tenancies, but within the special jurisdiction provided for under Article 7(1)(a) of that regulation for matters relating to a contract.
An action seeking the removal from the land register of notices evidencing the donee’s right of ownership falls within the exclusive jurisdiction provided for under Article 24(1) of the same regulation.

La Corte di giustizia ha affermato quanto segue nella sentenza del 16 novembre 2016 relativa alla causa C‑417/15, Wolfgang Schmidt c. Christiane Schmidt.

Le disposizioni del regolamento n. 1215/2012 concernente la competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (Bruxelles I bis), devono essere interpretate nel senso che l’azione di annullamento di un atto di donazione di un immobile per incapacità di agire del donante non rientra nella competenza esclusiva del giudice dello Stato membro in cui l’immobile è situato, prevista all’articolo 24, punto 1, di tale regolamento, in materia di diritti reali e personali su beni immobili, bensì nella competenza speciale per le controversie in materia contrattuale di cui all’art. 7, punto 1, lett. a), di detto regolamento.
L’azione di cancellazione dal registro fondiario delle annotazioni relative al diritto di proprietà del donatario ricade nella competenza esclusiva prevista all’articolo 24, punto 1, del medesimo regolamento.

L’avocat qui dispose d’un pouvoir l’autorisant à représenter ses clients pour l’ensemble de la procédure devant la CEDH doit néanmoins justifier avoir reçu des instructions récentes de ses clients. À défaut la requête doit être rayée du rôle.

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, chambre correctionnelle, 23 septembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Orléans, chambre commerciale, économique et financière, 31 mars 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 7e chambre A, 22 février 2016

Cour d'appel de Paris, chambre 54, pôle 7, 16 novembre 2016

Professor Marketa Trimble (UNLV School of Law) has a fascinating post on the Technology and Marketing Law Blog.  She notes that “After years of what seemed to the outside world to be a period of denial, internet companies now appear to have awakened to the idea–or at least to have acknowledged the idea–that conflict of laws does play a crucial role on the internet.”  See this link for more.

bail d'habitation

Santé publique - Professions de santé

Bail d'habitation ; Compétence