Feed aggregator

La surveillance de l’utilisation d’internet par un salarié sur le lieu et pendant les heures de travail met en jeu le droit au respect de la vie privée et de la correspondance garanti par l’article 8 de la Convention européenne. Toutefois, il n’est pas déraisonnable de vouloir vérifier que les employés achèvent leurs tâches professionnelles.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Vie privée

en lire plus

Bail d'habitation

Appel civil

Action en justice

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, 7e chambre, 4 décembre 2014

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Grenoble, 1er chambre des appels correctionnels, 1er avril 2015

Autriche / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme que la garantie accordée par l’Autriche à la BayernLB dans le cadre de sa restructuration en ce qui concerne les lignes de crédit de BayernLB en faveur de Hypo Group Alpe Adria constitue une aide d’État qui est toutefois compatible avec le droit de l’Union

Azarov / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule le gel de fonds de cinq Ukrainiens dont MM. Mykola Yanovych Azarov et Sergej Arbuzov, anciens Premiers ministres de l’Ukraine, pour la période allant du 6 mars 2014 au 5 mars 2015

Laezza
Liberté d'établissement
Une réglementation nationale sur les jeux de hasard peut être contraire au principe de proportionnalité si elle impose au concessionnaire de céder gratuitement les équipements utilisés pour la collecte de paris

Éditions Odile Jacob / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour rejette le pourvoi d’Odile Jacob dans l’affaire du rachat de Vivendi Universal Publishing par Lagardère

Lors d’un point presse organisé mercredi 27 janvier 2016, le bâtonnier de Paris Frédéric Sicard a rappelé qu’il avait appelé à un débat constitutionnel sur l’Habeas corpus et le droit à l’avocat. « Les pouvoirs publics ont donné une réponse inquiétante », a révélé le bâtonnier, qui a expliqué qu’il lui avait été répondu en substance que le gouvernement n’avait pas le temps de s’occuper de la question.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

The CJEU has held in Case C-521/14 Sovag that Article 6(2) Brussels I (Article 8(2) in the Recast) applies regardless of whether the proceedings are brought against (which is what inter alia the English language version suggests) or by a third party.

A, the victim of a traffic accident that took place in Germany, brought an action in Finland against SOVAG, with which the vehicle responsible for the damage was insured. That traffic accident also constituting a work accident under the Law on accident insurance, If, which is established in Finland, paid A compensation for the accident in accordance with that law. After A had brought the action against SOVAG, If itself sued SOVAG before the same court of first instance.

The national court in first instance held that, in accordance with Article 8 of Regulation 44/2001, in matters relating to insurance jurisdiction may be determined by the provisions of Section 3 of Chapter II of that Regulation alone. According to SOVAG, Article 6(2) of Regulation 44/2001 is indeed not applicable because Section 3 of Chapter II of the same Regulation establishes an autonomous system for the conferring of jurisdiction in matters of insurance. On this issue, the CJEU (at 30) reminded the national court of earlier case-law that where the action at issue in the main proceedings concerns relations between professionals in the insurance sector, and will not affect the procedural situation of a party deemed to be weaker, the insurance title does not apply. The objective of protecting a party deemed to be weaker being fulfilled once jurisdiction is established on the basis of Section 3 of Chapter II of Regulation 44/2001, subsequent procedural developments concerning only relations between professionals cannot fall within the ambit of that section.

Next, the wording of several of the language versions of Article 6(2), in particular the German, French, Finnish and Swedish versions, does not prevent the court before which the original proceedings are pending from having jurisdiction to hear and determine an action brought by a third party against one of the parties to the original proceedings.  However, other language versions of that provision, particularly the English language version, appear to restrict its scope to actions brought against third parties (‘a person domiciled in a Member State may also be sued: … as a third party’).

While the CJEU acknowledged that the special jurisdictional rules need to be applied restrictively, ie not going beyond their purpose, here the purpose of Article 6(2) is the harmonious administration of justice, namely minimising the possibility of concurrent proceedings and ensuring that irreconcilable judgments will not be given in two Member States. Therefore Article 6(2) must also apply where the third party brings the proceedings, not just where it is drawn into those proceedings by others.

However, the Court also sanctioned the Finnish rule of civil procedure that the right of a third party to bring an action in connection with pending judicial proceedings, is contingent on that action being linked to the original proceedings. Given that Article 6(2) does not apply where the proceedings were brought ‘solely with the object of removing’ the party concerned from the jurisdiction of the court which would ordinarily have jurisdiction to hear the case,  the CJEU OK-ed the Finnish rule as being one that assist in helping to avoid abuse of the rule on joinders.

I would have thought the Court would have made that rule one of EU law, given its insistence on autonomous interpretation. (Rather than simply OK-ing a national rule). Whether there is such a European rule therefore must stay into the open a little longer.

Geert.

 

 

It has already been mentioned on this blog that the European Commission is funding an international research project on “European Private International Law – Legal Application in Reality” (EUPILLAR). The project, which is led by Prof. Paul Beaumont and Dr. Katarina Trimmings from the University of Aberdeen (UK), will last for two years and involves six research partners from the Universities of Freiburg (Germany), Antwerp (Belgium), Wroclaw (Poland), Leeds (UK), Milan (Italy) and Complutense (Madrid, Spain), examining the case law and legal practice on the main EU private international law instruments in the Court of Justice of the European Union and in the participating Member States. The key objectives of the project are to consider whether the selected Member States’ courts and the CJEU can appropriately deal with the relevant cross-border issues arising in the European Union context and to propose ways to improve the effectiveness of the European PIL framework.

After a practitioners‘ workshop has already been conducted in Freiburg last year, the German branch of the project (Prof. Jan von Hein) is now organizing an academic conference which focuses on the experience gathered in German court practice so far. The conference will take place on 14-15 April 2016 in Freiburg and features high-level academics dealing with pervasive issues such as European and domestic court organization, the methods of evaluating PIL instruments and the application of foreign law in practice. Moreover, court practice on PIL instruments such as Rome I and II, Brussels I(bis) and II(bis) will be analyzed and discussed. The conference language is German and the proceedings will be published in the „Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Rechtswissenschaft“. Participation is free of charge, but requires a prior registration. For the full programme and further details, see here. For registration, please click here.