Feed aggregator

È stato pubblicato sulla Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea del 24 dicembre 2015 il regolamento (UE) 2015/2421 del 16 dicembre 2015, che modifica il regolamento n. 861/2007, istitutivo del procedimento europeo per le controversie di modesta entità, e il regolamento n. 1896/2006, istitutivo del procedimento europeo di ingiunzione di pagamento (si veda da ultimo, sulla revisione dei due strumenti, questo post).

Queste le novità principali per quanto riguarda i c.d. small claims.

(a) Viene estesa, innanzitutto, la portata applicativa del regolamento n. 861/2007. Le controversie “di modesta entità” sono ora definite tali in relazione ad una soglia di valore che passa dai 2.000 ai 5.000 Euro.

(b) Quanto al procedimento, che per principio rimane scritto, è previsto che il giudice fissi un’udienza “esclusivamente se ritiene che non sia possibile emettere la sentenza sulla base delle prove scritte o su richiesta di una delle parti” e che una richiesta tesa a questo scopo possa essere rigettata solo se il giudice “ritiene che, tenuto conto delle circostanze del caso, un’udienza sia superflua per l’equa trattazione del procedimento” (il testo tuttora in vigore prevede, più genericamente, che il giudice proceda a un’udienza “se lo ritiene necessario o su richiesta di una delle parti”, potendo rigettare una tale richiesta “se ritiene che, tenuto conto delle circostanze del caso, un’udienza sia manifestamente superflua per l’equa trattazione del procedimento”). È incentivato l’uso della videoconferenza e di analoghe tecnologie. Norme più specifiche sono introdotte, poi, con riguardo all’assunzione delle prove nonché in tema di notifiche e comunicazioni.

(c) Le spese di giustizia richieste dai singoli Stati membri “non devono essere sproporzionate e maggiori di quelle applicate ai procedimenti giudiziari nazionali semplificati nello stesso Stato membro”. Agli Stati membri viene comunque chiesto di provvedere “affinché le parti possano pagare le spese di giudizio con mezzi di pagamento a distanza, che consentano alle parti di effettuare il pagamento anche da uno Stato membro diverso da quello in cui ha sede l’organo giurisdizionale”, dovendo essere offerta almeno almeno una delle seguenti modalità di pagamento: bonifico bancario, pagamento con carte di credito o debito, addebito diretto sul conto corrente dell’attore.

(d) La procedura di riesame della sentenza in casi eccezionali è ora consentita al convenuto a cui non è stato notificato il modulo di domanda o, nel caso si sia tenuta un’udienza, se il convenuto stesso non è stato citato a comparire a tale udienza in tempo utile e in modo tale da consentirgli di provvedere alla propria difesa. In alternativa, il riesame rimane ammissibile se il convenuto non ha avuto la possibilità di contestare la domanda a causa di forza maggiore o di circostanze eccezionali a lui non imputabili. Il termine per chiedere il riesame, sin qui ancorato a un parametro generico (“purché agisca tempestivamente”) viene fissato in 30 giorni, decorrenti “dal giorno in cui il convenuto ha avuto effettivamente conoscenza del contenuto della sentenza ed è stato posto nelle condizioni di agire, al più tardi dal giorno della prima misura di esecuzione avente l’effetto di rendere i suoi beni indisponibili in tutto o in parte”. Viene poi garantita, in caso di annullamento della sentenza a seguito dell’accoglimento della richiesta di riesame, la salvezza degli effetti della domanda: ai sensi del nuovo art. 18, par. 3, secondo comma, “l’attore non perde i benefici di un’interruzione dei termini di prescrizione o decadenza ove tale interruzione si applichi ai sensi del diritto nazionale”.

(e) Si prevede adesso che le conciliazioni approvate da un organo giurisdizionale o concluse dinanzi a un organo giurisdizionale nell’ambito del procedimento europeo per le controversie di modesta entità e aventi efficacia esecutiva nello Stato del foro “sono riconosciute ed eseguite in un altro Stato membro alle stesse condizioni delle sentenze emesse nell’ambito del procedimento europeo per le controversie di modesta entità”.

Passando alle innovazioni relative al regolamento n. 1896/2006 sul procedimento europeo di ingiunzione di pagamento, è ora previsto che, in caso di tempestiva opposizione, il procedimento prosegua “dinanzi ai giudici competenti dello Stato membro d’origine” secondo il procedimento europeo per le controversie di modesta entità, laddove applicabile, oppure in conformità con “un rito processuale civile nazionale appropriato”.

Spetterà al ricorrente precisare, nella domanda di ingiunzione, quale di queste procedure debba essere seguita in caso di opposizione alla sua domanda nel successivo procedimento civile qualora il convenuto presenti opposizione all’ingiunzione di pagamento europea.

In mancanza di tale indicazione, o qualora il ricorrente abbia chiesto che si applichi il procedimento europeo per gli small claims a una controversia che non rientra nel campo di applicazione di tale regolamento, “il procedimento viene trattato secondo l’appropriato rito civile nazionale, a meno che il ricorrente non abbia esplicitamente chiesto che tale mutamento di rito non avvenga”.

Le modifiche prefigurate dal nuovo regolamento saranno applicabili a decorrere dal 14 luglio 2017.

In October 2015, the long awaited Commission Report on the application of Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure (that was due December 2013) was published. It generally and optimistically concludes that:

Overall, the objective of the Regulation to simplify, speed up and reduce the costs of litigation in cases concerning uncontested claims and to permit the free circulation of European payment orders in the EU without exequatur was broadly achieved, though in most Member States the procedure was only applied in a relatively small number of cases. From the studies and consultation carried out, it appears that there have been no major legal or practical problems in the use of the procedure orin the fact that exequatur is abolished for therecognition and enforcement of the judgments resulting from the procedure.

On the basis of a limited and somewhat outdated set of data the following observations are made. Annually, approximately 12.000 to 13.000 applications for the procedure are received. Most orders are issued in Germany and Austria (approx. 4.000). In seven other Member States, the number of applications is between 300-700, while in the remaining Member States the use of the procedure is very limited.

The time lapse between the application and issuing the order (that should normally not be more than 30 days according to Art. 12 of the EOP Regulation) varies considerably per Member State. Some Member States are able to issue the order within one or several weeks, while the majority of the Member States take several months and up to nine months. Only six Member States have an average length of the procedure lower than 30 days, according to available data upon which the report is based. Another important element for assessing the effectiveness of the procedure is the number of oppositions against the European order for payment; if opposition is lodged the case should proceed according to domestic procedural rules (Art. 16 and 17 EOP Regulation). This percentage varies largely, from approx. 4% (in Austria) to over 50% (in Greece). Looking at the numbers, the general trend is that in Member States where the procedure is used often the opposition rate is low, whereas in Member States where the procedure is rarely used the opposition rate is high. It would be interesting to know what causes what – the chicken and egg dilemma.The costs of the procedure vary considerably per Member State as well, and when translation of documents is required (which is the case in most countries, as the majority only accepts documents in the domestic language), the costs of the procedure are high. Furthermore, Member States have varying methods to calculate court fees.

The report rightfully concludes that Art. 20 of the EOP Regulation requires clarification as has been proposed for the European Small Claims Procedure (see our earlier post). From national case law and a number of cases that have reached the Court of Justice, notably eco cosmetics and Raiffeisenbank St. Georgen (joined cases C-119 and C-120) it is clear that not all situation where a remedy should be available due to defect service are covered by the Regulation. The Court of Justice ruled that national law should provide such remedy. This is clearly a shortcoming of the Regulation also considering that remedies in the Member State of enforcement are limited if not absent, and it (further) undermines the uniform application. On a positive note, the report concludes that generally no problems were reported in the enforcement of EOPs, except for the general lack of transparency of debtors’ assets for enforcement purposes in a cross-border context. This optimistic conclusion may, however, also be due to the lack of information on the actual enforcement track, which can generally be troublesome in many Member States. Regarding the Banco Español case (C-618/10) addressing the issue of order for payment and unfair contract terms (it concerned a clause on interest), the Report concludes that Art. 8 of the EOP Regulation requiring the court to examine whether the claim appears to be founded on the basis of the information available to it, the courts have sufficient room to take account of the principle of effectiveness. They can, for instance, on the basis of Art. 10 issue only a partial order. In addition, a full appreciation takes place after opposition. One might still question whether this satisfactorily resolves the issue, especially how this relates to the encouraged full automatization and digitalization of the procedure and how it shifts the burden to the consumer.

The report urges to raise awareness of the procedure, and suggests that the electronic processing should be maintained and improved; most Member States do not provide electronic submission possibilities for (all) parties yet. Concentration of jurisdiction, as some Member States have done, is advised, as this contributes to a swift resolution of the procedure. Swiftness in general is a problem; the report once again stresses the fact that late payments are a key cause of insolvencies in small and medium-sized enterprises. It then the EOP procedure takes 6 months, the beneficiary effect of the procedure is annihilated.

Happy holidays!

 

Par un arrêt du 3 décembre 2015, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a jugé que la condamnation pour diffamation de Me Prompt, auteur d’un ouvrage sur l’assassinat de Grégory Villemin, n’emportait pas violation de son droit à la liberté d’expression.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Diffamation

en lire plus

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme confirme la position des autorités nationales suisses sous l’angle de l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, lesquelles n’avaient pas l’obligation de reconnaître le mariage d’une mineure de quatorze ans en Iran.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Néant

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. Le service de l’actualité sera interrompu le 24 décembre 2015 et reprendra le 4 janvier 2016.

Nous vous souhaitons de joyeuses fêtes de fin d’année et nous vous remercions de votre fidélité – et de vos lectures attentives. Nous vous retrouvons dès le 4 janvier 2015, avec une édition complète et riche en informations.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

The Scotch Whisky Association
Agriculture
La loi écossaise introduisant un prix minimum de vente par unité d’alcool est contraire au droit de l’Union dès lors que des mesures fiscales moins restrictives peuvent être introduites

Pologne / Parlement et Conseil
Principes du droit communautaire
Selon l’avocat général Kokott, la nouvelle directive de l’Union européenne sur les produits du tabac est valide

Air France - KLM
Fiscalité
La TVA est exigible sur les billets d’avion non utilisés et non remboursables

Commission / Grèce
SOPO
En permettant aux médecins de travailler d’affilée pendant 24 heures ou plus, la législation grecque est contraire au droit de l’Union

Il volume n. 375 del Recueil des cours de l’Académie de Droit International de la Haye, uscito a Novembre 2015, comprende, fra gli altri, uno scritto di Ted M. de Boer intitolato Choice of Law in Arbitration Proceedings.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Contrary to national courts, arbitral tribunals are not bound to local rules of private international law: there is no lex fori determining the choice-of-law issues that may be raised in arbitration proceedings. Arbitrators are thus faced with the problem of choosing (a) the law governing disputes on the existence and validity of arbitration agreements, (b) the law governing the merits of the case, and (c) the law governing the proceedings as such. Most of these problems could be solved by an express choice of law by the parties. However, apart from the question of whether such a choice is valid and permissible and which law applies to that issue, the principle of party autonomy is of no avail in the absence of a (valid) agreement on the applicable law. In this course, various solutions to the choice-of-law problems that may arise in arbitration proceedings are discussed and evaluated.

Ulteriori informazioni sull’intero volume, compresi gli indici degli articoli, sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

Le commissaire européen en charge de la coopération internationale et du développement, Neven Mimica, a annoncé le 9 décembre 2015 le lancement du premier mécanisme de l’Union européenne pour les défenseurs des droits de l’homme.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Un requérant est en droit de se prétendre victime d’une violation de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, bien qu’il ne puisse pas alléguer avoir fait l’objet d’une mesure concrète de surveillance de ses conversations téléphoniques ; la simple existence de la législation incriminée constitue en soi une ingérence dans l’exercice par l’intéressé des droits découlant de l’article 8 de la Convention. 

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Regular readers of the blog will know I do not easily stray from the legal menu. When I do, it has to be for something extraordinary. Master in the kitchen is just that, for it takes away all excuses not to spend time with family and friends preparing and enjoying great food produce. (Instead of just food products). Plus the site’s photography offers a lot of eye candy.

To all readers, Merry Christmas or alternative seasons’s greetings.

Geert.

Une nouvelle version de l’article 47 du règlement de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme fixant les modalités de ses saisines entraînera, à compter du 1er janvier 2016, des modifications relatives au formulaire de requête de la Cour.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Le Conseil de l’Europe a présenté, le 7 décembre 2015, son premier rapport consacré au suivi des mécanismes juridiques des États parties à la Convention de Lanzarote relative à la protection des enfants contre l’exploitation et les abus sexuels.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Thanks to the generosity of Sophie Nappert (BCL’86, LLB’86), the Nappert Prize in International Arbitration will be awarded for the second time in 2016 after an enormously successful inaugural competition in 2014. The Nappert Competition is open to all students, junior scholars and junior practitioners from around the world. To be eligible for the prize, authors must be either currently enrolled in a B.C.L, LL.B., J.D., LL.M., D.C.L., or Ph.D. program (or their local equivalents). Those who are no longer in school must have taken their most recent degree within the last three years, or have been admitted to the bar (or the local equivalent) for no more than three years (whichever is later).

Prizes: First place: Can $4,000; Second place: Can. $2,000; Third place: Can $1,000. Winning one of the awards will also carry with it the presentation of the paper at a symposium to be held at McGill in autumn 2016 (the expenses of the winners for attending the symposium will be covered). The precise date of the symposium will be fixed in the coming months. The best oralist will receive an award of Can. $1,000.

Deadline: April 30, 2016.

The essay:
• must relate to commercial or investment arbitration;
• must be unpublished (not yet submitted for publication) as of April 30;
• must be a maximum of 15, 000 words (including footnotes);
• can be written in English or in French;
• should use OSCOLA or some other well-established legal citation guide (e.g. McGill Red Book; Bluebook);
• must be in MS Word format.

Jurors for the 2016 competition will be:
• Sébastien Besson, Partner, Lévy Kaufmann-Kohler, Geneva
• Chester Brown, Professor of International Law and International Arbitration, The University of Sydney Faculty of Law
• José Feris, Deputy Secretary-General, ICC International Court of Arbitration, Paris
• Henry Gao, Associate Professor, Singapore Management University
• Meg Kinnear, Secretary-General, International Centre for Settlement of Investment Disputes, Washington, DC
• Cesar Pereira, Partner, Justen, Pereira, Oliveira, and Talamini, São Paolo
• Abby Cohen Smutny, Partner, White & Case LLP, Washington, DC

Submissions are to be emailed to Camille Marceau, Camille.Marceau@mail.mcgill.ca, as an attached file before April 30, 2016. Submissions should be accompanied by a statement affirming the author’s eligibility for the competition, confirmation that the work is original to the author, and confirmation of the unpublished status of the paper. Review of the papers will start after April 30. For more information, kindly email Mlle. Marceau, Camille.Marceau@mail.mcgill.ca, or Professor Andrea K. Bjorklund, andrea.bjorklund@mcgill.ca, Faculty of Law, McGill University.