Feed aggregator

Here’s the recipe for Lungowe v Vedanta at the High Court.

Obtain one lb of C-291/02 Owusu: European authority: forum non conveniens has no place in the Brussels jurisdictional regime; particularly now in Article 4 of the Brussels I Recast for as Coulson J points out at 57 in his judgment in Lungowe, Articles 33-34 of the Recast Regulation do foresee consideration in the event of parallel proceedings outside of the EU.

Mix with one lb of Chandler v Cape : English authority: parent companies may in circumstances be held liable for the actions of their foreign subsidiaries; referred to with approval by the Dutch Courts in Shell.

Have Zambian claimants in a case of environmental pollution employ Article 4 to establish jurisdiction against a holding company established in England. The company is a holding company for a diverse group of base metal and mining companies, including the second defendant, Konkola.

The fact that Vedanta are domiciled in the United Kingdom is, evidently, one of the principal reasons why they have been pursued in these proceedings (see Coulson J’s acknowledgment of same at 76). This is a manifestation of forum shopping which the CJEU has certainly encouraged. Moreover, as Coulson J suggests at 77-78, claimants also wish to pursue Vedanta because they are seen as the real architects of the environmental pollution in this part of Zambia. The argument is that, since it is Vedanta who are making millions of pounds out of the mine, it is Vedanta who should be called to account. On balance, the use of Vedanta as an anchor defendant can hardly be seen as a malicious ‘device’ or an abuse of the anchor defendant mechanism.

On that issue of abuse, reference is made by the High Court to Freeport and to CDC at the CJEU. There is no suggestion of course that either are direct precedent for the anchor defendant mechanism in residual national private international law. (Which is the case here: for the Brussels Recast joinder mechanism in Article 7 most certainly does not apply to defendants domiciled outside of the EU). It is telling therefore that the Court does refer to them here. (And inevitably raises the question whether English Court will continue to do so after Brexit).

Both 20 Essex Street and RPC have further discussion. All in all an uplifting day in the English Courts for corporal social responsibility campaigners.

European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 8, Headings 8.3.1.1., 8.3.2

L’article 6, § 1er, de la Convention européenne de droits de l’homme n’oblige pas l’État partie à prévoir un mécanisme légal et judiciaire de réparation civile pour des actes de torture commis dans un État tiers.

en lire plus

Enhancing cooperation between authors from various Member States

University of Zagreb – 29/30 September 2016

The University of Zagreb is organising a conference on 29/30 September 2016 on European international civil procedure and new approaches concerning European legal information. This conference is part of a project, co-financed by the European Commission and organised by the University of Innsbruck together with the Universities of Genoa, Zagreb, Valencia, Prague and Riga and the legal publisher IPR Verlag.

The objective of the unalex project is the creation of solid multilingual information on the application of the European legal instruments of judicial cooperation in civil matters in the European area of justice and to provide the European legal discussion with an important focus of genuinely European legal literature. The project aims at bringing together authors in the area of European international civil procedure and conflict of laws and promoting techniques of joint legal publishing with the objective of creating forms of multilingual legal literature for readers in the entire European Union.

The conference in Zagreb has two parts:

29 September 2016 – Shaping European legal information – new approaches

Thursday afternoon (14:00-17:30) is dedicated to the development of new approaches concerning the shaping of European legal information. A round table discussion with supreme court judges from various Member States is planned on the subject “European Leading Cases series – a project to be developed?”. Furthermore innovative strategies for the development of European legal literature and the possible enhancement of cross-border cooperation of European legal authors will be discussed.

30 September 2016 – European international civil procedure – a system in the making

The second day (9:30 – 13:99) will host a conference on “European international civil procedure – a system in the making”. It will discuss common lines of European civil procedure that evolve throughout the multitude of EU civil procedure regulations. The conference will be chaired by Prof. Hrovje Sikiri?, University of Zagreb, and Prof. Andreas Schwartze, University of Innsbruck.

Speakers:

Prof. Rainer Hausmann, Munich – The European system of international civil procedure

Prof. Matthijs ten Wolde, University of Groningen – Third State relations

Prof. Davor Babi?, University of Zagreb – Scope of application (in particular temporal scope)

Dr. Susanne Gössl, University of Bonn – The role of public policy in the European civil justice system

Prof. Vesna Rijavec, University of Maribor – European enforcement of judgments

Dr. Eva Lein, British Institute of International and Comparative Law – Exiting an ever closer system – consequences of Brexit

Prof. Erich Kodek, Wirtschaftsuniversität Vienna, Judge Austrian Supreme Court – Horizontal harmonisation of instruments of European civil procedure – towards a European Code of Civil Procedure?

Participation to the conference is free of charge.

For additional information and registration please contact Ms Sara Ricci at IPR Verlag GmbH: sara.ricci@simons-law.com

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) vient de condamner à nouveau la France pour refus de transcription à l’état civil du lien de filiation biologique d’un enfant né sous gestation pour autrui (GPA).

Invoquant l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale), les requérants se plaignaient d’une violation de leur droit au respect de leur vie privée et familiale résultant du refus de transcription.

en lire plus

Un concours de plaidoiries organisé par l’équipe de défense des deux avocats turcs emprisonnés Ayse Acinikli et Ramazan Demir s’est tenu à la maison du barreau de Paris. Le vainqueur rejoint les rangs de l’équipe de défense.

en lire plus

La Commission européenne publie plusieurs propositions destinées à renforcer les mesures de transparence dans le cadre de la lutte contre le financement du terrorisme, l’évasion fiscale et le blanchiment de capitaux. 

en lire plus