Flux européens

I have reported earlier on the 2015 Belgian Act tackling the enforcement of vulture fund litigation. In preparation of a paper on the topic, I have had to translate the (relevant parts of: I have omitted intro- and extroductory parts) the Act. I thought I might as well share. Source reference would be much appreciated if you do employ the translation below.

Geert.

Article 2

When a creditor pursues an unfair benefit by purchasing Government bonds or receivables, his rights vis-à-vis the debtor State are limited to the price paid for the bonds or receivables.

Regardless of the law governing the legal relationship between the creditor and the debtor State, no enforcement title can be obtained in Belgium and no protective or enforcement measure can be taken in Belgium at the request of such creditor in connection with a payment to be received in Belgium if such payment procures an unfair benefit vis-à-vis the creditor.

Pursuing an unfair benefit exists where there is clear disproportion between the purchase price and the bonds or securities’ face value, or between the purchase price of the bonds and the sums actually claimed by the creditor.

Such clear disproportion  must be supplemented by at least one of the following criteria for it to qualify as an unfair benefit:

–         Bankruptcy or suspension of payments of /by the debtor State was established, or imminent, when the bonds or receivables were purchased;

–         The creditor has its seat in a State or territory which

a)       Either is included in the list of uncooperative States and territories as established by the Financial Action Task Force (FATF); or

b)       Meets with the definition of tax haven established per Article 307, para 1, fifth indent of the Income Tax Act 1992; or

c)       Is included in a Government list of States unwilling to negotiate an agreement which in accordance with relevant OECD standards, provides as of 2015 for the automatic exchange of data with Belgium on fiscal and banking matters;

–         The creditor systematically employs litigation to obtain reimbursement of the bonds previously purchased;

–         The creditor has refused to co-operate with the establishment restructuring measures for the debtor State;

–         The creditor has abused the debtor State’s weakened position so to negotiate a clearly imbalanced repayment agreement; or

–         Repayment in full of the sums claimed by the creditor would have a clearly establishable negative impact on the public finances of the debtor State and could endanger the socioeconomic development of its population.

Art.3

This Act does not affect the application of international Treaties, the law of the European Union, or bilateral Treaties.

 

On 2 and 3 June 2016, the Academy of European Law (ERA) will host a workshop in Trier aimed to discuss case-studies and permit exchange of experience on the EU Succession Regulation.

[From the website of the Academy] – The new EU Succession Regulation (EU) No 650/2012, which aims to ameliorate and simplify international inheritance rules, is applicable since 17 August 2015. Due to various uncertainties it still provides for new challenges in cross-border estate planning.  After nearly one year of experience with the Regulation, this seminar will discuss key practical problems for cross-border estates on the basis of real cases and case-studies. Active participation of the participants will be encouraged through a workshop format.

Speakers include Ulf Bergquist (Bergquist & Partners), Astrid Deixler-Hübner (University of Linz), Richard Frimston (Russell-Cooke), Jens Kleinschmidt (University of Trier), Martin Schauer (University of Vienna) and Patrick Wautelet (University of Liège).

See here for further information.

On 20 April 2016, an agreement in principle has been reached within the Permanent Representatives Committee of the Council of the European Union as to the approval of the proposal for a Council Decision — illustrated in this post — authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions on the property regimes of international couples, and the transmission of the proposal, as approved, to the European Parliament for consent under Article 329 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

The following Member States have made known their intention to take part in the enhanced cooperation: Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, the Czech Republic, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, the Netherlands, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.

L’Università Roma Tre ospita, tra il 2 e il 9 maggio 2016, una serie di incontri dedicati a temi di diritto internazionale privato.

Interverranno, fra gli altri, Javier Carrascosa González (Univ. Murcia), Francesco Salerno (Univ. Ferrara) e Carlo De Stefano (Univ. Bocconi).

Gli incontri, inaugurati in realtà da una lezione di Francesca Pietrangeli (Foro di Roma) tenutasi nelle settimane precedenti, toccano un’ampia varietà di temi, dalla responsabilità per fatto illecito ai contratti, dal divorzio alle successioni mortis causa, dal riconoscimento degli status personali acquisiti all’estero al coordinamento fra giurisdizione e arbitrato.

Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

On 17 March 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law decided to set up a Special Commission to prepare a draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (the Hague Judgments Convention), while endorsing the recommendation of the Working Group on the Judgments Project that matters relating to direct jurisdiction should be put for consideration to the Experts’ Group of the Judgments Project soon after the Special Commission has drawn up a draft Convention.

The Special Commission will meet in the Hague between 1 and 9 June 2016 to discuss the proposed draft text drawn up by the Working Group. The text may be found here, accompanied by an explanatory note prepared by the Permanent Bureau.

As stated in Article 1 of the proposed draft text, the Convention is meant to apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments “relating to civil and commercial matters”, at the exclusion of matters in the field of family law, the law of persons and successions. Insolvency, the carriage of passengers and goods, marine pollution, liability for nuclear damage and defamation are equally featured in the list of excluded matters.

Article 4(1) provides that a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State must be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State in accordance with the Convention. Recognition and enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in the Convention itself.

As a rule, a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the bases listed in Article 5 of the proposed draft text is met, ie, if jurisdiction was asserted in the country of origin in conformity with one of the grounds of jurisdiction contemplated by the Convention.

Suitable grounds include the habitual residence of the defendant (to be understood as meaning, pursuant to Article 3(2), the place where the defendant has its statutory seat, or under whose law it was incorporated, or where it has its central administration or principal place of business), and the defendant’s consent to the jurisdiction of the seised court as expressed in the course of the proceedings.

According to the proposed draft text, a judgment is also eligible for recognition, inter alia: if it ruled on a contractual obligation “and was given in the State in which performance of that obligation took place or should take place under the parties’ agreement or under the law applicable to the contract, unless the defendant’s activities in relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State”; if it ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from personal injury or damage to tangible property, “and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred”; if the judgment ruled on an infringement of a patent, trademark, design or other IP right required to be deposited or registered, “and it was given by a court in the State in which the deposit or registration of the right concerned has taken place”; if the judgment ruled on the validity or infringement of copyright or related rights “and the right arose under the law of the State of origin”.

By derogation from Article 5, the proposed draft text sets forth in Article 6 some exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement. In particular, a judgment that ruled on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered “shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the State of origin is the State in which deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place, or is deemed to have been applied for or to have taken place under the terms of an international or regional instrument”, while a judgment that ruled on rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property for a period of more than six months “shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State of origin”.

The grounds on which a judgment eligible for recognition and enforcement may nevertheless be denied recognition or enforcement in a Contracting State are enumerated in Article 7.

Specifically, recognition and enforcement may be denied if the document which instituted the proceedings was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence or “was notified to the defendant in the requested State in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service of documents”; if the judgment “was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure”; if recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested State”; if the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in the requested State in a dispute between the same parties with an earlier judgment given in another State between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfills the conditions necessary for its recognition in the requested State.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the proposed draft text, recognition or enforcement may also be refused “if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered”.

Article 11 lays down the list of documents to be produced by the party seeking recognition or applying for enforcement of a foreign judgment under the Convention, while Article 12 clarifies that the procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested State unless the Convention provides otherwise.

La riforma del regolamento Bruxelles I. Il regolamento (UE) n. 1215/2012 sulla giurisdizione e l’efficacia delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, a cura di A. Malatesta, con la collaborazione di G. Vitellino e N. Nisi, Giuffrè, 2016, ISBN: 9788814212451, pp. 238, Euro 20.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Il volume analizza le novità introdotte dal regolamento (UE) n. 1215/2012 del 12 dicembre 2012 (c.d. «Bruxelles I-bis»), alla disciplina concernente la competenza giurisdizionale e il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale. Dal 10 gennaio 2015 esso sostituisce il precedente regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 del 22 dicembre 2000, il quale a sua volta era succeduto, “comunitarizzandola”, alla convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968, oggetto come noto ormai da oltre quarant’anni di applicazione nella prassi giudiziaria italiana. Il nuovo testo modifica in alcuni punti anche sensibilmente – si pensi solo all’abolizione dell’exequatur – la precedente normativa. Gli Autori si soffermano sugli aspetti di maggiore interesse per l’operatore giuridico italiano coinvolto in liti di carattere internazionale. Il volume è corredato da un’appendice completa e ragionata e da informazioni non immediatamente accessibili agli utenti.

L’indice dell’opera può essere consultato qui. Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

On 3 May 2016, Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (Univ. Ljubljana) will speak of Provisional measures in European civil procedural law in the framework of a workshop at the Rovigo branch of the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara.

Attendance is free. See here for more details.

Borealis Polyolefine
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour déclare invalide la quantité annuelle maximale de quotas gratuits d’émission de gaz à effet de serre fixée par la Commission pour la période 2013-2020

Borealis Polyolefine
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour déclare invalide la quantité annuelle maximale de quotas gratuits d’émission de gaz à effet de serre fixée par la Commission pour la période 2013-2020

Borealis Polyolefine
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour déclare invalide la quantité annuelle maximale de quotas gratuits d’émission de gaz à effet de serre fixée par la Commission pour la période 2013-2020

Pappalardo e.a. / Commission
Politique de la pêche
Le Tribunal rejette le recours en indemnité formé par des pêcheurs italiens à la suite de l’interdiction prématurée de la pêche du thon rouge par la Commission en 2008

Pappalardo e.a. / Commission
Politique de la pêche
Le Tribunal rejette le recours en indemnité formé par des pêcheurs italiens à la suite de l’interdiction prématurée de la pêche du thon rouge par la Commission en 2008

Pappalardo e.a. / Commission
Politique de la pêche
Le Tribunal rejette le recours en indemnité formé par des pêcheurs italiens à la suite de l’interdiction prématurée de la pêche du thon rouge par la Commission en 2008

Il 27 maggio 2016, l’Università  di Milano ospita un seminario dal titolo Cross-border litigation in Europe: Private International Law legislative framework, national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union, nell’ambito del quale saranno presentati i risultati di una ricerca sull’applicazione in Italia dei regolamenti dell’Unione europea in materia di diritto internazionale privato e processuale realizzata nel quadro del progetto EUPILLAR.

Nel corso dei lavori, coordinati da Stefania Bariatti (Univ. Milano), interverranno, tra gli altri, Francesca Villata, Ilaria Viarengo, Jacopo Re, Filippo Marchetti e Sara Bernasconi (tutti Univ. Milano), Francesco Salerno (Univ. Ferrara), Peter Kindler (Univ. Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München), Cristina Campiglio (Univ. Pavia), Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona) e Rosario Espinosa Calabuig (Univ. Valencia).

Il programma completo ed ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

L’Associazione Internazionale di Diritto delle Assicurazioni – Sezione Lombarda organizza per il 6 maggio 2016 a Milano un convegno dal titolo Assicurazioni e risarcimento dei danni da illecito transfrontaliero.

Intervengono, fra gli altri, Marco Frigessi di Rattalma (Univ. Brescia), con una relazione su Legge applicabile e giurisdizione in materia di assicurazione e risarcimento dei danni da illeciti transfrontalieri: problemi e prospettive, e Michele Comenale Pinto (Univ. Sassari), su Il sistema di risarcimento dei danni nel trasporto aereo di persone.

La partecipazione al convegno è gratuita, previa registrazione all’indirizzo email aida.meeting@libero.it.

Per maggiori informazioni, compreso il programma completo, si veda qui.

Perhaps because it so reflected our children’s character [all ‘Duracell‘ kids] there is one part of Dr Seuss’ Cat in the Hat which has always stuck with me:

so all we could do was to

sit!

   sit!

      sit!

         sit!

and we did not like it.

not one little bit.

I was reminded of the line, reading Bot AG’s Opinion in Case C-492/14, ‘Essent 2.0’ (not yet available in English at the time of writing). In order to promote the generation of renewable energy, Flanders law makes transmission of electricity generated from renewable sources, free of charge. However this courtesy is limited to electricity generated in installations directly connected to the grid. Essent imports (a considerable part of) its green electricity from The Netherlands. It does not therefore enjoy free transmission.

Bot’s disapproval of trade restrictions like these is well established and has often been reported on this blog. The CJEU disagrees with its AG on many of the issues. I am in general of the same view as the AG. Mr Bot continues to find the Court’s case-law unconvincing and makes no attempt to hide it. He repeatedly mentions that he is duty-bound to apply Essent /Vindkraft without believing they are good law. It is with obvious regret that he Opines that given the Court’s stand in Essent /Vindkraft, he has no option but to propose that the Court find the Flemish regime acceptable.

The AG does however leave open a future window for change: in particular, if and when the secondary law regime on renewable energy specifically, and energy as a whole, is amended, one may be able to distinguish Essent /Vindkraft.

Bot also reminds us of the unclear position of environmental exceptions under Article 36 TFEU and the Rule of Reason. He calls upon the Court formally to acknowledge that the Cassis de Dijon distinction between the Rule of Reason and Article 36 (the former does not allow ‘distinctly applicable’ national measures (read’ discrimination) while the latter does) no longer exists.

I do not like judgment in Preussen Elektra. Or in Essent. Not one little bit. It discourages the creation of a true European energy market. Perhaps the Court will surprise us all in Essent 2.0 and will correct some of the damage it has done with its standing case-law on the matter.

Geert.

 

Irlande / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme la décision de la Commission ordonnant le remboursement des exonérations fiscales accordées par la France, l’Irlande et l'Italie en faveur de la production d’alumine

Irlande / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme la décision de la Commission ordonnant le remboursement des exonérations fiscales accordées par la France, l’Irlande et l'Italie en faveur de la production d’alumine

Irlande / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal confirme la décision de la Commission ordonnant le remboursement des exonérations fiscales accordées par la France, l’Irlande et l'Italie en faveur de la production d’alumine

Clayton P. Gillette, Steven D. Walt, The UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: Theory and Practice, Cambridge University Press, 2016, ISBN 9781316604168, pp. 451, GBP 37,99.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Updated and expanded for the second edition, this volume provides attorneys, academics and students with a detailed yet accessible overview of the United Nations Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Adopted by more than eighty nations and governing a significant portion of international sales, the CISG regulates contract formation, performance, risk of loss, conformity to contractual requirements and remedies for breach. This volume explains the CISG doctrines and their ambiguities, and appraises the extent to which the doctrines reduce transaction costs for commercial actors. Its topic-based approach will be ideal for those pursuing academic analysis or subject-specific research.

Il sommario dell’opera è consultabile qui. Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.