
In a recent order of 14 September 2015 – 1 BvR 1321/13, the German Federal Constitutional Court (Bundesverfassungsgericht) has held that the right to effective judicial protection (Article 2(1) in conjunction with Article 20(3) of the German constitution) is violated if, in a cross-border case, a court fails to investigate the facts of the case by using possibilities that have good prospects of success, in particular if it does not take into account specific institutionalised facilities and measures of judicial assistance, such as those offered by the European Evidence Regulation, the Hague Evidence Convention and the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters. In the case before the Court, a Romanian national had sued a widow of Romanian nationality for a share of the inheritance of her deceased husband based on the assertion that the couple had adopted him. Although it remained controversial whether such an adoption had actually taken place in Romania, the Municipal Court (Amtsgericht) did not request the Romanian adoption files for consultation by way of judicial cooperation. According to the Constitutional Court, the Amtsgericht ought to have considered whether the EU Evidence Regulation or the Hague Evidence Convention permit a German court to request the original case files from another Member State. An English abstract of the decision is available here.
Compétence
Conseil de Prud'hommes d'Arras 30 mars 2016
I shall keep this post short for otherwise it risks developing into a book. In a week which also saw the Panama papers blow a hole in the use of tax havens for individuals, the collapse of the Pfizer Allergan merger may be the beginning of the end for the Irish (and similar) corporate tax Nirvana. The US treasury’s new rules on outgoing corporate mobility mean re-incorporation in Ireland has become an awful lot less attractive.
I realise there are caveats and one may be comparing cheese and chalk. Also, tax lawyers no doubt will have to chew over this, yet: may this not also be the moment for the EC to reconsider similar issues in EU law, kicked off some time back by the Daily Mail case?
Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private International Law 2nd ed 2016 Chapter 7.
La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme confirme sa position, sous l’angle de l’article 8 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale) dans le cadre des pouvoirs d’appréciation des juges en matière de droit à l’image.
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: Droit à l'imageDans un arrêt du 23 mars 2016, la grande chambre de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) apporte des précisions sur les obligations découlant pour les États des articles 2 et 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (droit à la vie, interdiction de la torture) dans les affaires d’expulsion.
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: NéantThe following announcement has been kindly provided by Mihail Buruiana, Senior Lecturer, State University of Moldova.
The Faculty of Law of Moldova State University in Chisinau, Republic of Moldova, will host an international conference dealing with “Recent Developments in Private International Law” on Thursday, 20 October, and Friday, 21 October 2016. Prospective speakers are kindly invited to submit abstracts of not more than 500 words (in Word) addressing any aspect of the Conference theme. The abstracts should include the name(s) and affiliation(s) of the author(s) and should be submitted before Saturday, 10 May 2016. The Programme of the Conference will consist of a mix of plenary sessions and parallel sessions. The topics of the sessions will include, inter alia: Theory of Private International Law; Choice of Law and Choice of Law Clauses; Jurisdiction and Forum Clauses; Natural Persons in Private International Law; Legal Persons in Private International Law; Family (Children and Adults); Succession; Contract; Insolvency; Tort; Recognition and Enforcement; Arbitration. The languages at the Conference will be Romanian and English (with simultaneous translation). Further information is available at the Conference website here.
Diffamation et injure
La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme condamne – de nouveau – la Turquie pour ne pas avoir suffisamment protégé une femme, victime de violences conjugales, conduisant à la violation des articles 3 (interdiction de la torture, des traitements inhumains ou dégradants) et 14 (interdiction de la discrimination) de la Convention européenne.
En carrousel matière: Oui Matières OASIS: Néant« Dans le cadre d’un litige portant sur l’inexécution d’une obligation contractuelle, dans lequel le requérant a saisi les juridictions de l’État membre sur le territoire duquel le défendeur a son siège social, la compétence de ces juridictions est susceptible de découler de l’article 24 (du règlement Bruxelles I) lorsque le défendeur ne conteste pas leur compétence, alors même que le contrat entre ces deux parties contient une clause attributive de compétence en faveur des juridictions d’un État tiers ».
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: Compétence internationale (Procédure civile)Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel
Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer