Feed aggregator

Pourvoi c/ Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris, 25 juillet 2014

Uglješa Grušić, The European Private International Law of Employment, Cambridge University Press, 2015, pp. 382, ISBN: 9781107082946, GBP 79,99.

[Dal sito dell’editore] The European Private International Law of Employment provides a descriptive and normative account of the European rules of jurisdiction and choice of law which frame international employment litigation in the courts of EU Member States. The author outlines the relevant rules of the Brussels I Regulation Recast, the Rome Regulations, the Posted Workers Directive and the draft of the Posting of Workers Enforcement Directive, and assesses those rules in light of the objective of protection of employees. By using the UK as a case study, he also highlights the impact of the ‘Europeanisation’ of private international law on traditional perceptions and rules in this field of law in individual Member States. For example, the author demonstrates that the private international law of the EU is fundamentally reshaping English conflict of laws by almost completely merging the traditionally perceived contractual, statutory and tortious claims into one claim for choice-of-law purposes.

Il sommario dell’opera può essere consultato qui. Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) juge que la simple mise en place d’une procédure d’identification ne suffit pas à exclure l’existence d’une expulsion collective.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Dans une décision rendue le 14 juillet 2015, la Cour constitutionnelle de la Fédération de Russie rappelle que la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme ne saurait remettre en cause la primauté de sa Constitution.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Cour européenne des droits de l'Homme Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme

en lire plus

Contrats et obligations conventionnelles

Contrats et obligations conventionnelles ; Prêt

Officiers publics ou ministériels

Séparation des pouvoirs

Irrecevabilité

Divorce, séparation de corps

Conflit de loi

FCD et FMB
Rapprochement des législations
Les articles incorporés en tant que composant d’un produit complexe doivent faire l’objet d’une notification auprès de l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques, lorsqu’ils contiennent une substance extrêmement préoccupante dans une concentration supérieure à 0,1 %

Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras
SOPO
Les déplacements que les travailleurs sans lieu de travail fixe ou habituel effectuent entre leur domicile et le premier ou le dernier client de la journée constituent du temps de travail

H&M Hennes & Mauritz / OHMI - Saint Laurent (Forme de sacs à main)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal de l’UE rejette les recours formés par H&M contre l’enregistrement de deux modèles de sac d’Yves Saint Laurent

EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Cooperation Principles, a cura di Bob Wessels, Eleven International Publishing, 2015, pp. 136, ISBN 9789462365865, Euro 32,50.

[Dal sito dell’editore] This publication contains a set of 26 EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Cooperation Principles (‘EU JudgeCo Principles’) and 18 EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Communications Guidelines (‘EU JudgeCo Guidelines’). These EU JudgeCo Principles will strengthen efficient and effective communication between courts in EU Member States in insolvency cases with cross-border effects. They have been produced in a period of two years (2013-2014), developed by a team of scholars of Leiden Law School and Nottingham Law School, in collaboration with some 50 experts, including 25 judges representing just as many different EU countries. The principles are set in EU stone, in that they especially function within the framework of the EU Insolvency Regulation. The texts have been aligned with the text of the recast of the Regulation, as published early December 2014. The EU JudgeCo Principles try to overcome present obstacles for courts in EU Member States such as formalistic and detailed national procedural law, concerns about a judge’s impartiality, uneasiness with the use of certain legal concepts and terms, and, evidently, language. The texts further build on existing experience and tested resources, especially in cross-border cases in North America, but tailor-made into an EU insolvency law context. These Principles include a set of very practical EU JudgeCo Guidelines to facilitate communications in individual cross-border cases. The project was funded by the European Union and the International Insolvency Institute (III) (www.iiiglobal.org) and we thank both sponsors for their continued support.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Towards the end of July, the Court at Amsterdam applied the recent CJEU judgment in CDC, on the application of (now) Article 8’s rule on anchor defendants. The case also involved CDC – busy bees on the competition enforcement front, this time pursuing inter alia Kemira, a Finnish company, using Akzo Nobel NV, domiciled in The Netherlands, as anchor defendants.

The court referred in extenso to the CJEU’s CDC case, noting inter alia that it is not up to CDC to show that the suit was not just introduced to remove Kemira from the Finnish judge: that Kemira suggests that introduction of the suit in The Netherlands is not very logical given the absence of factual links to that Member State, does not suffice. The court also adopted the CJEU’s finding on choice of court and liability in tort. In the absence of specific proviso in standard contractual choice of court, liability such as here, for infringement of competition law, cannot be assumed.

Finally, at 2.18, the Court also referred to argument made by Kemira that Finish and Swedish law ought to apply to the interpretation (not: the validity) of the choice of court agreement. That would have been an interesting discussion. However in light of the court’s earlier judgment on the irrelevance of the court of choice, the court did not entertain that issue.

Geert.

 

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) précise les règles à respecter lors de l’introduction d’une action en contrefaçon par le titulaire d’un brevet essentiel à une norme en position dominante contre un contrefacteur allégué.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Brevet d'invention Contrefaçon

en lire plus

Par deux arrêts des 7 et 16 juillet 2015, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme décide d’appliquer la procédure d’arrêt pilote à l’égard de la Pologne et de la Hongrie pour des pratiques incompatibles avec les articles 6, § 1 (droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable), et 13 (droit à un recours effectif) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Cour d'appel de Montpellier, 02 septembre 2015

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, chambre correctionnelle, 1er septembre 2015