Feed aggregator

The 23rd International Conference of Europeanists, organised by the Council for European Studies at Columbia University (CES), will be devoted to the topic Resilient Europe?, and will take place in Philadelphia from 14 to 16 April 2016.

One of the panels is titled Do we trust in ‘mutual trust’? Current challenges to mutual recognition in the Area of Freedom, Security and Justice as a benchmark for Europe’s resilience. 

[Summary] – The Area of Freedom, Security and Justice (AFSJ) encompasses crucial policy areas for European integration. Mutual recognition is the driving engine for the EU action in these fields and a cornerstone of the AFSJ. Yet, it is also a complex principle. Since mutual recognition does not produce common substantive rules, it would seem to be less problematic than other methods of integration (e.g. approximation or harmonisation) in terms of interference with the Member States’ legal orders. In reality, mutual recognition presupposes a certain degree of openness to and tolerance of the diversity characterizing each national legal system. In fact, its root is mutual trust between the Member States. “Resilience” is not a recurrent notion in legal studies on mutual recognition. Nevertheless, the academic debate, the case law of European and national courts, but also dramatic events such as the migrants crisis, have pointed to different challenges – legal, political and societal – that surround the application of mutual recognition in the AFSJ matters. These challenges affect the trust between the Member States, and the trust of the Member States and individuals towards the Union. In this sense, the capacity to react constructively to such challenges is a proxy to test Europe’s resilience. Accordingly, the five presentations within this panel provide a comprehensive overview and analysis of current shortcomings of mutual recognition in the AFSJ. Their common purpose is to provoke a constructive discussion on possible solutions to improve the principle’s functioning and its contribution to European integration.

The panel will be articulated in the following speeches: Mutual Recognition As a Governance Strategy for Civil Justice, Eva Storskrubb (Univ. Uppsala); Mutual Recognition in Civil Matters: An Appraisal Between (partial) Achievements and New Challenges, Ornella Feraci (Univ. Florence); Mutual Recognition in Criminal Justice: Towards Order and Method?, Maria Bergstrom (Univ. Uppsala); Mutual Trust As a Stumbling Block to the Accession of the EU to the Echr?, Nicole Lazzerini (Univ. Parma). The session will be chaired by Nicolò Nisi (Univ. Bocconi, Milan) and discussed by Ester di Napoli (Univ. Magna Graecia of Catanzaro).

The full programme of the conference can be downloaded here. For more information see here.

Aranyosi
Justice et Affaires intérieures
L’exécution d’un mandat d’arrêt européen doit être reportée s’il existe un risque réel de traitement inhumain ou dégradant en raison des conditions de détention de la personne concernée dans l’État membre d’émission du mandat

In November 2014 scholars from all over Europe met at the University Verona to discuss the impact of the Brussels I Recast on cross-border litigation in Europe (see our previous post). The conference volume, edited by Franco Ferrari (NYU Law School/University of Verona) and  Francesca Ragno (University of Verona), has now been published by Wolters Kluwer Italy (Cross-border Litigation in Europe: the Brussels I Recast Regulation as a panacea?).

 

The table of contents reads as follows:

Sergio M. CARBONE – Chiara E. TUO, Non-EU States and the Brussels I Recast Regulation: New Rules and Some Solutions for Old Problems

Martin GEBAUER, A New Head of Jurisdiction in relation to the Recovery of Cultural Objects

Ruggero CAFARI PANICO, Enhancing Protection for the Weaker Parties: Jurisdiction over Individual Contracts of Employment

Giesela RÜHL, The Consumer’s Jurisdictional Privilege: on (Missing) Legislative and (Misguided) Judicial Action

Peter MANKOWSKI, The Role of Party Autonomy in the Allocation of Jurisdiction in Contractual Matters

Francesca C. VILLATA, Choice-of-Courts Agreements and “Third Parties” in light of Refcomp and beyond

Peter Arnt NIELSEN, The End of Torpedo Actions?

Francisco GARCIMARTÍN, The Cross-Border Effectiveness of Inaudita Parte Measures in the Brussels I Recast Regulation: an Appraisal

Thomas PFEIFFER, The Abolition of Exequatur and the Free Circulation of Judgment

Luigi FUMAGALLI, Refusal of Recognition and Enforcement of Decisions under the Brussels I Recast Regulation: where the Free Circulation meets its Limits

Francesca RAGNO, The Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Hague Convention: Convergences and Divergences in relation to the Enforcement of Choice-of-Courts Agreements

Fabrizio MARONGIU BUONAIUTI, The Brussels I Recast Regulation and the Unified Patent Court Agreement: towards an Enhanced Patent Litigation System

« Les conditions de fond du mariage entre deux personnes, l’une de nationalité française, l’autre de nationalité marocaine, sont régies, selon l’article 5 de la Convention franco-marocaine du 10 août 1981 (…), par la loi nationale de chacun des époux ».

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Mariage (Formation)

en lire plus

Dans un arrêt du 17 mars 2016, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) apporte des précisions sur les conditions dans lesquelles un État membre de l’Union européenne peut envoyer un demandeur de protection internationale vers un pays tiers sûr. Selon le règlement « Dublin III » (Règl. n° 604/2013, 26 juin 2013), tout État membre conserve le droit d’envoyer un demandeur de protection vers un pays tiers sûr, sous réserve des règles et garanties fixées dans la directive « procédures » (Dir. 2013/32/UE, 26 juin 2013).

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Le Tribunal de l’Union européenne se prépare à l’arrivée de nouveaux membres

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, Pôle 2, chambre 1, 30 septembre 2015

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Vasil Savov, CDC, Brussels.

The European University Institute (EUI) Law Department in Florence, Italy, has just released a comparative study on the calculation of interest on damages resulting from antitrust infringements. It is highly topical, as the EU Member States are in the process of implementing Directive 2014/104/EU into their national laws. This “Damages Directive” seeks to facilitate private antitrust enforcement and, in particular, to ensure full compensation for victims. Due to the duration of antitrust infringements, the accrual of interest from the occurrence of the harm is essential to achieve full compensation. This study samples thirteen national laws and assesses how far they are consistent with the requirements to be found in EU law. It has been supported by Cartel Damage Claims (CDC) SCRL, Brussels.
The first part of the study elucidates the principles and requirements of EU Law relevant to interest calculation on damages caused by antitrust infringements. It further contains a high level assessment of the compliance of the surveyed Member States’ legal regimes.
It is followed by 13 country reports, written by national experts, all answering standardised questions concerning the subject of the study. The questions cover a range of material and procedural law aspects and include calculations for a hypothetical case.
The present EUI study is an in-depth and comparative treatment of this technical, yet significant, aspect of antitrust damages claims. For claimants and practitioners, the study offers a systematic and practical account of interest rules in a number of jurisdictions, for judges and lawmakers, the study provides analysis and recommendations for the proper application of interest rules and advice on principles that should inform the implementation of the Damages Directive.
The full text of the study is available here.

In Winkler v Shamoon [2016] EWHC 2017 Ch Mr Justice Henry Carr broadly follows Mrs Justice Susan Carr in Sabbagh v Khoury (which I have reviewed earlier) on the interpretation of the ‘wills and succession’ exception in the Brussels I Recast (and the Lugano convention). [The Justices themselves, incidentally, are neither related nor married, I understand]. In so doing, Sir Henry follows Dame Susan’s approach vis-a-vis the exclusions in the Brussels I Recast.

Ms Alexandra Shamoon accepts that she is domiciled in the UK for the purposes of the Brussels Regulation.  However, she applies for an order on essentially the same basis as that set out above, contending, in particular, that the claim relates to succession and therefore falls outside the scope of the Brussels Regulation. Brick Court have summary of the case and hopefully do not mind me borrowing their heads-up of the facts:

the case concerns the estate of the late Israeli businessman, Sami Shamoon.  Mr Shamoon owned and controlled the Yakhin Hakal Group of Israeli companies and was known in his lifetime as one of the wealthiest men in Israel.  The claim was brought by Mr Peretz Winkler, formerly the Chief Financial Officer and manager of Yakhin Hakal, against Mrs Angela Shamoon and Ms Alexandra Shamoon, the widow and daughter respectively of Mr Shamoon and the residuary legatees under his will.  In his claim Mr Winkler alleged that prior to his death Mr Shamoon had orally promised to transfer to him certain shares worth tens of millions of dollars.  On the basis of the alleged promise Mr Winkler claimed declarations against Angela and Alexandra Shamoon as to his entitlement to the shares (which they are due to receive under Mr Shamoon’s will).  Angela and Alexandra challenged the jurisdiction of the English Court to hear the claim on the basis that it was a matter relating to “succession” within article 1(2)(a) of the Brussels Regulation and therefore fell outside its scope (and that England was not the natural or appropriate forum for the dispute).

If the claim does fall within the scope of the Regulation, jurisdiction is quite easily established on the basis of the defendant’s domicile – albeit with contestation of such domicile in the UK by Mr Shamoon’s widow and daughter.

Carr J held that the claim was one relating to succession and therefore fell outside of the Brussels I Recast (at 53 ff). While I may concur in the resulting conclusion, I do not believe the route taken is the right one. Sir Henry follows Mrs Justice Carr’s approach in applying the excluded matters of the Brussels I Recast restrictively. I disagree. Exclusions are not the same as exceptions: Article 24’s exclusive rules of jurisdictions are an exception to the main rule of Article 4; hence they need to be applied restrictively. Article 1(2)’s exclusions on the other hand need to be applied solely within the limits as intended. Lead is also taken from Sabbagh v Koury with respect to the role of the EU’s Succession Regulation. Even if the UK is not party to that Regulation, both justices suggest it may still be relevant in particular in assisting with the Brussels I Recast ‘Succession’ exception. If the approach taken in Winkler v Shamoon is followed it leads to a dovetailing of the two Regulations’ respective scope of application. Not a conclusion I think which is necessarily uncontested.

The High Court concludes (at 72) ‘this claim is excluded from the Brussels Regulation and the Lugano II Regulation as its principal subject matter is “succession” within the meaning of Article 1(2)(a).  In particular, it is a claim whose object is “succession to the estate of a deceased person” which includes “all forms of transfer of assets, rights and obligations by reason of death”. It is a succession claim which concerns “sharing out of the estate”; and it is a claim within the definition of “succession as a whole” in Article 23 of the Succession Regulation, as a claim whose principal subject matter concerns  “the disposable part of the estate, the reserved shares and other restrictions on the disposal of property upon death”: Article 23(h); and an “obligation to …account for gifts, …when determining the shares of the different beneficiaries”: Article 23(i).

Intriguingly, of course, had the UK be bound by the Succession Regulation, and given the dovetailing which the judgment suggest, the next step after rejection of jurisdiction on the basis of the Brussels I Recast, would have been consideration of jurisdiction following the Succesion Regulation. It is ironic therefore to see the Regulation feature as a phantom piece of legislation. Now you see it, now you don’t.

Geert.

(Handbook EU Private international law, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.2.10).

 

On 15 April 2016, the Faculty of Law of the University of Santiago de Compostela will host a conference on Security rights and the European Insolvency Regulation: From Conflicts of Laws towards Harmonization.

Speakers include Paul Beaumont (Univ. of Aberdeen), Francisco Garcimartín Alferez (Autonomous Univ. of Madrid), Anna Gardella (European Banking Authority), Wolf-Georg Ringe (Copenhagen Business School), Françoise Pérochon (Univ. of Montpellier) and Paul Omar (Nottingham Trent University).

The conference is part of the SREIR project, coordinated by Gerard McCormack, Reinhard Bork, Laura Carballo Piñeiro, Marta Carballo Fidalgo, Renato Mangano and Tibor Tajti.

The full programme is available here.

Attendance to the conference is free, but registration prior to 10th April is required.  For this, an e-mail with name and ID card must be sent to marta.carballo@usc.es or laura.carballo@usc.es.