Agrégateur de flux

Dr. Gérardine Goh Escolar, First Secretary at the Hague Conference on Private International Law, has prepared a lecture on the main features of the Hague Conference and its work. The lecture is available in three languages (English, French and Spanish) in the UN Audiovisual Library of International Law.

You can watch the lectures here. 

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 27th February 2020 delivered its judgment in Corporis/Gefion Insurance, Case C-25/19. The case concerned rules surrounding service of documents in a specific, yet increasingly common context.

Corporis is a Polish insurance company, who was assigned damages by the owner of a vehicle following a car accident for the value of 30 euro. Gefion was the Danish insurance company covering the risk related to the accident. Under the Solvency II Directive, insurance undertakings may provide services in other Member States without having there an agency or an establishment – yet, for compulsory motor insurance coverages they must appoint a representative with “sufficient powers to represent the undertaking … including the payment of such claims, and to represent it or, where necessary, to have it represented before the courts and authorities of that Member State in relation to those claims” (Art 152). The Polish representative of Gefion was Crawford Polska.

When Corporis wanted to start judicial proceedings, it served legal documents upon the prospective defendant, in Denmark. Documents were not translated, and the recipient of the documents, according to Art 8 of the Service of Documents Regulation (no. 1393/2007), refused to accept service on the ground that it was in not in the condition to understand the content of the documents.

Polish courts suspended proceedings, requesting Corporis advanced payment for translation for 1.500 euro. Failing such payment, the court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the court of appeal questioned whether the Service of Documents Regulation was applicable, as its recital 8 states that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”.

The Court of Justice was thus called to rule on whether the rules on the appointment of representatives contained in the Solvency II Directive and the scope of application of the Service of Documents Regulation as reconstructed in light of its recital extend the competence and duties of said representative to receive service of documents in the language of that specific host State for which he has been appointed.

The Court of Justice has confirmed that the Service of Documents Regulation is not applicable to service of a document on the party’s authorized representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place (para 28 f). The applicability of the regulation is set aside in light of its recital 8, according to which it should not be applied “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. This sets the difference from the previous case law of the court, namely the Alder judgment Case C-325/11, where there was no local representative of the foreign defendant, nor a legal obligation to appoint such a representative.

Yet, in the Court’s eye, the non-application of the Service of Documents Regulation in the case at hand does not mean that EU law remains silent in general. The Solvency II Directive creates a harmonized regime for the pursuit of insurance activities between Member States. Amongst its goals, not only the promotion of cross-border services, but the protection of persons as well. The necessity for an insurance undertaking to appoint a representative in a State where it decides to offer services without opening an agency or an establishment is pre-ordered at the protection of persons; even though the Solvency II Directive is silent on the matter, according to the Court, not recognizing the right to victim to serve documents in his own language to the representative with whom it has already taken preliminary steps would, in essence, deprive the provisions of their effet utile.

Interestingly, in terms of legal narrative, the matter is mostly constructed in positive terms. The Court speaks of the “possibility for that representative to accept service” (para 37); it stress the negative consequences of excluding “the powers [of the] representative to accept service of documents” (para 42). Evidently, from the perspective of the foreign insurance company and its representative, this is more a matter of legal obligation to accept service.

The approach and the perspective followed by the Court becomes apparent in the conclusion. The Court does not clearly say that the representative has an obligation to accept service – it says that the rules on appointment in the Solvency II Directive include the power to receive service of documents. An argumentative style that appears to little prejudice to the conclusion: insurance companies now know that when they appoint a representative in another Member State under Artt. 152 Solvency II Directive, persons will have the possibility to serve documents to that representative, and avoid a cross-border service of documents.

In May 2018, the European Commission published a proposal for a Regulation amending the 2001 Evidence Regulation. The name of the proposal immediately clarifies the lack of ambition of the project: the intention is to amend the existing text, not to recast it.

The Commission Proposal

The Proposal aims at improving the 2001 Regulation by: using electronic transmission as the default channel for electronic communication and document exchanges; promoting modern means of taking evidence such as videoconferencing and incentives (via the financing of national projects) for Member States to equip courts with videoconferencing facilities; removing legal barriers to the acceptance of electronic (digital) evidence; tackling divergent interpretations of the term ‘court’;  communicating the importance of the uniform standards provided by the Regulation (streamlined procedures, equal standard of protection of the right of the parties involved); best practices for competent courts, to help them apply the procedures properly and without delay; and raising courts’ and legal professionals’ awareness of the availability of the direct channel of taking evidence under the Regulation.

On 13 February 2019, the European Parliament adopted its first-reading position on the proposal, with 37 amendments to the text of the Commission.

On 29 November 2019, the Council of the European Union adopted a general approach of the text.

The main purpose of the proposal is to improve transmission of requests and communication by using modern communication technology. There is no doubt that this is an important concern. Yet, the operation of the Evidence Regulation arguably raises much more important issues.

The Optional Regulation

The Evidence Regulation should further European integration by facilitating and expediting the taking of evidence in other Member States.

Instead, it is the experience of many European practitioners that the Regulation does just the opposite. It creates obstacles, and slows down the taking of evidence abroad. The reason is simple: the Regulation requires the intervention of authorities in the requested state as a preliminary step to the taking of evidence abroad. The most liberal provision in this respect is Article 17, which introduced “Direct taking of evidence by the requesting court” in other Member States. But even under Article 17, it is necessary to “submit a request to the central body or the competent authority” of the requested state.

The European Union has abolished the exequatur procedure for judgments rendered in civil and commercial matters. Under the Brussels II bis Regulation, decisions on the return of a child are immediately enforceable and may not be challenged in the requested state, even for alleged violations of human rights. But the taking of evidence abroad is still subject to a preliminary procedure. The system completely lags behind.

In Lippens and ProRail, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed the issue by ruling that the application of the Evidence Regulation was not mandatory, and that Member States could simply ignore it and take evidence abroad under their own procedures, without seeking any kind of approval from the requested state. In particular, the CJEU ruled in ProRail:

43. (…) it must be recalled that, according to recitals 2, 7, 8, 10 and 11 in the preamble to Regulation No 1206/2001, the aim of the regulation is to make the taking of evidence in a cross-border context simple, effective and rapid. The taking of evidence, by a court of one Member State in another Member State must not lead to the lengthening of national proceedings. (…)

45. An interpretation of Articles 1(1)(b) and 17 of Regulation No 1206/2001 according to which the court of a Member State is obliged, for any expert investigation which must be carried out directly in another Member State, to take evidence according to the method laid down by those articles would not be consistent with those objectives. In certain circumstances, it may be simpler, more effective and quicker for the court ordering such an investigation, to take such evidence without having recourse to the regulation. 

The CJEU however reserved cases where the taking of evidence would affect the powers of the requested Member State.

The Proposal of the Commission does not address the optional character of the Regulation. This means that the future amended Regulation will remain an optional instrument that the courts of the Member States are free to (continue to) ignore.

Liberalizing the Taking of Evidence in Other Member States

The most important issue that the Proposal does not tackle, however, is that of the obstacles that the Regulation creates in the taking of evidence abroad, and that litigants avoid by resorting to national law.

During the legislative process which lead to the adoption of the initial Evidence Regulation, Germany had proposed to fully liberalize the operation of judicial experts in other Members States. Under this exception, courts could appoint a judicial expert to carry out his mission in other Member States without any need for a preliminary procedure in the requested state. The exception was eventually not adopted. However, this is exactly what the CJEU has allowed in ProRail, which was concerned with the operation of a judicial expert in another Member State.

The reform of the Evidence Regulation was thus the perfect opportunity to reconsider the issue. A much more ambitious reform would have attempted to identify cases where the taking of evidence abroad could be liberalized by abolishing any preliminary procedure, and cases where some kind of involvement of the requested state would still appear to be justified.

Instead, the European lawmaker is about to ignore the problem and, by doing so, to generate considerable uncertainty.

Disclosure: the author was a member of the expert group established by the European Commission for the purpose of drafting the Proposal of the Commission.

The Covid-19 pandemic is on everybody’s mind. Around the world, countermeasures limit public life and freedom of movement, especially cross-border traffic. This raises the question to which extent Private International Law is relevant and capable of handling this new situation. Here are some provisional thoughts on the potential impact of travel bans and other emergency measures under the Rome I and II Regulation.

Transport contracts

Some countries have restricted free movement from persons coming from areas affected by the Corona virus. Austria, for instance, does not allow people coming from Italy into its territory, while the US has just banned travel from Europe with the sole exception of the UK. As a result, flights, trains and bus trips have been cancelled.

For courts in the EU (with the exception of Denmark), the law governing these transport contracts is regulated by Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation. The determination of the applicable law is quite straight forward: The fallback rule is that the law of the habitual residence of the passenger applies (Article 5(2) Rome I). The trickier question, however, is which impact the local law at the place of destination might have on the contract.

The answer for EU courts is given by Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation. The prohibition to enter the territory of a Member State certainly qualifies as an overriding mandatory rule in the sense of paragraph 1 of the provision. Should the courts of that Member State decide over the case, they would apply this provision as part of their lex fori (see Article 9(2) Rome I). The result would certainly not be very different for courts outside the EU, which would apply such provisions as part of their public policy.

The court of another Member State, for instance those of the place of departure, may give effect to the overriding mandatory rules of the state of destination because the contract is to be performed there (see Article 9(3) Rome I). In case the latter has prohibited all travel, this would render the performance of the contract unlawful in the sense of the provision. Mind that the courts of the other states have discretion whether to give effect to the travel ban (see the word “may” in Article 9(3) Rome I).

Cancelled or Postponed Events

The virus has led to the cancellation of events around the world, from congresses to concerts and soccer matches. Usually, the tickets to these events will be subject to the local law where the event takes place.

However, this is not always the case. The parties may have chosen another law (Article 3 Rome I). The consumer protection rules do not interfere with this choice, when the event takes place in a state in which the consumer does not have its habitual residence (see Article 6(4)(a) Rome I). In the absence of a choice, the law at the habitual residence of the service provider applies (Article 4(1)(b) Rome I). If it is – as usual – a corporate entity, the law at the place of its central administration governs (Article 19(1) Rome I). These laws may be replaced by that of a branch that has concluded or executed the contract (Article 19(2) Rome I).

If as a result a foreign law governs the contract, the law of the place of the event may be applied as an overriding mandatory rule under the conditions set by Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation. Insofar, the same considerations as for transport contracts apply. Where the law of the event does not call for a full cancellation, but rather for some changes, such as a postponement or the shift to another place, this law may be considered as the law of the place of performance (lex loci solutionis) under Article 12(2) of the Rome I Regulation.

Cancelled or Delayed Deliveries

Where deliveries of goods were cancelled or postponed, the solution is much the same as for events. The law of the place of performance may apply either as an overriding mandatory provision under Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation or is to be taken into account as lex loci solutionis under Article 12(2) of the same Regulation.

An interesting extension of the concept of public policy rules can be observed in China: According to a recent post on Chinese law a Chinese authority is issuing so-called force majeure certificates pretending to absolve Chinese companies from the need to fulfill contracts with foreign parties. The author assumes that courts of the People’s Republic could consider these certificates as part of public policy even in the absence of compulsory government orders.

From an EU viewpoint, the assessment is quite different. European courts apply legal concepts independently of any measures by administrative authorities. And while compulsory restrictions certainly qualify as overriding mandatory rules, the same is not true for the doctrine of force majeure, which does not meet the requirements of Art 9(1) Rome I. European courts will therefore follow this concept only where it is part of the law governing the contract, and assess independently whether its conditions are met. They can merely take into account, as a matter of fact, mandatory provisions at the place of performance if the applicable substantive law so allows (see to this effect the ruling of the Court of Justice in Nikiforidis, para 51).

Infections

It is hard to identify the source of a Corona infection, but it may not be impossible. A victim may for instance sue the operator of a foreign airport, hospital or hotel for the failure to take appropriate precautions. If both parties are privy to a contract, the law applicable to that contract will decide over the necessary measures, including duties of information and warning in the pre-contractual phase (Article 12 Rome II).

It is also possible that the parties are not contractually bound to each other. Imagine for instance a passenger of a flight suing another passenger who has neglected her infection. Which law applies? EU courts will have to search for the solution in the Rome II Regulation.

A first idea that might spring to mind is to apply Article 7 of the Rome II Regulation, which deals with environmental damages. Yet Recital 24 of the Rome II Regulation defines ‘environmental damage’ as ‘adverse change in a natural resource, such as water, land or air, impairment of a function performed by that resource for the benefit of another natural resource or the public, or impairment of the variability among living organisms’. The virus is respiratory and travels by air, but arguably, it does not change this natural resource. Its main negative effects are on the health of other individuals. While one may debate this assessment, it seems more certain that Corona does not impair fauna’s variation.

Hence the general rule of Article 4 of the Rome II Regulation applies. The first, rather curious, result is that any claim is governed by the law of the common habitual residence of the sick and the infected person (Article 4(2) Rome II). The dispute between two Italian residents on a plane from Frankfurt to Moscow would thus be governed by Italian law, unless there is a manifestly closer connection (Article 4(3) Rome II).

If the parties to the dispute reside in different states, then the law of the place where the damage occurred applies (Article 4(1) Rome II). Airplanes are considered as being part of the territory of the country where they are registered. The suit of a Swedish passenger against a Swiss resident on a flight from Stockholm to Geneva in a plane registered in Ireland would thus be governed by Irish law.

Cross-border infections, for instance by sending contaminated goods or livestock, are also governed by the law of the place of damage (Article 4(1) Rome II) or by the common habitual residence of the parties (Article 4(2) Rome II). Mind you, however, that the rules of safety and conduct at the place where the tortfeasor acted have to be taken into account (Art 17 Rome II). Thus, when infected animals are sent from Rome to Paris, the sanitary restrictions of Italian law would have to be considered by a court. But this is only the case insofar as they “appropriate”.

These results can again be influenced by overriding mandatory rules of the forum (Article 16 Rome II). Whether the court can also apply foreign overriding mandatory rules under the Rome II Regulation is subject to dispute. This should however be allowed in analogy to the possibility provided under the Rome I Regulation (Article 9(3) Rome I).

Conclusion

These considerations only concern private international law and leave out interesting questions of substantive law, such as those relating to force majeure, frustration or impossibility, which may be decided differently in each Member State. Moreover, they are merely provisional thoughts. It remains to be seen in which exact shape and form conflict of laws issues will arise from Covid-19.

The Court of Justice of the European Union on 27th February 2020 delivered its judgment in Corporis/Gefion Insurance, Case C-25/19. The case concerned rules surrounding service of documents in a specific, yet increasingly common context.

Corporis is a Polish insurance company, who was assigned damages by the owner of a vehicle following a car accident for the value of 30 euro. Gefion was the Danish insurance company covering the risk related to the accident. Under the Solvency II Directive, insurance undertakings may provide services in other Member States without having there an agency or an establishment – yet, for compulsory motor insurance coverages they must appoint a representative with “sufficient powers to represent the undertaking … including the payment of such claims, and to represent it or, where necessary, to have it represented before the courts and authorities of that Member State in relation to those claims” (Art 152). The Polish representative of Gefion was Crawford Polska.

When Corporis wanted to start judicial proceedings, it served legal documents upon the prospective defendant, in Denmark. Documents were not translated, and the recipient of the documents, according to Art 8 of the Service of Documents Regulation (no. 1393/2007), refused to accept service on the ground that it was in not in the condition to understand the content of the documents.

Polish courts suspended proceedings, requesting Corporis advanced payment for translation for 1.500 euro. Failing such payment, the court dismissed the case.

On appeal, the court of appeal questioned whether the Service of Documents Regulation was applicable, as its recital 8 states that it “should not apply to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”.

The Court of Justice was thus called to rule on whether the rules on the appointment of representatives contained in the Solvency II Directive and the scope of application of the Service of Documents Regulation as reconstructed in light of its recital extend the competence and duties of said representative to receive service of documents in the language of that specific host State for which he has been appointed.

The Court of Justice has confirmed that the Service of Documents Regulation is not applicable to service of a document on the party’s authorized representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place (para 28 f). The applicability of the regulation is set aside in light of its recital 8, according to which it should not be applied “to service of a document on the party’s authorised representative in the Member State where the proceedings are taking place regardless of the place of residence of that party”. This sets the difference from the previous case law of the court, namely the Alder judgment Case C-325/11, where there was no local representative of the foreign defendant, nor a legal obligation to appoint such a representative.

Yet, in the Court’s eye, the non-application of the Service of Documents Regulation in the case at hand does not mean that EU law remains silent in general. The Solvency II Directive creates a harmonized regime for the pursuit of insurance activities between Member States. Amongst its goals, not only the promotion of cross-border services, but the protection of persons as well. The necessity for an insurance undertaking to appoint a representative in a State where it decides to offer services without opening an agency or an establishment is pre-ordered at the protection of persons; even though the Solvency II Directive is silent on the matter, according to the Court, not recognizing the right to victim to serve documents in his own language to the representative with whom it has already taken preliminary steps would, in essence, deprive the provisions of their effet utile.

Interestingly, in terms of legal narrative, the matter is mostly constructed in positive terms. The Court speaks of the “possibility for that representative to accept service” (para 37); it stress the negative consequences of excluding “the powers [of the] representative to accept service of documents” (para 42). Evidently, from the perspective of the foreign insurance company and its representative, this is more a matter of legal obligation to accept service.

The approach and the perspective followed by the Court becomes apparent in the conclusion. The Court does not clearly say that the representative has an obligation to accept service – it says that the rules on appointment in the Solvency II Directive include the power to receive service of documents. An argumentative style that appears to little prejudice to the conclusion: insurance companies now know that when they appoint a representative in another Member State under Artt. 152 Solvency II Directive, persons will have the possibility to serve documents to that representative, and avoid a cross-border service of documents.

Dans un communiqué n° 28/20 du 11 mars 2020, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne annonce la prise de dispositions afin d’assurer la continuité dans le traitement des affaires et de contribuer à la lutte contre la propagation de l’épidémie. 

en lire plus

Cour de justice de la République

Assurance chômage - Contributions

The author of this post is Giovanni Chiapponi, research fellow at the MPI Luxembourg. The post is based on a presentation given at the weekly meeting of researchers of Department 1 of the MPI Luxembourg on 11 March 2020.

As the Covid-19 (corona virus) spreads out, the Italian government has taken some important measures, which have a strong impact on the structure of the internal judicial system. Thus, the Decree-Law No 11/2020 of 8 March 2020 contains extraordinary and urgent measures on the management of the judicial workload and on the internal organization of the judiciary to contrast the negative effects of the virus on the functioning of judicial activities.

Indeed, even in a period of crisis, where there are many risks at stake for the health of the population, it is important to ensure a proper administration of justice. Hence, the rationale of the decree is to guarantee an effective and efficient functioning of the judicial system.

In this regard, the decree provides for the postponement of hearings and for the suspension of time limits in civil, criminal, fiscal and military proceedings.  Consequences follow in all these fields of law, however my remarks will only focus on the consequences affecting civil matters.

According to Article 1(1), most civil hearings scheduled between the day following the entry into force of the decree (9 March 2020) and 22 March 2020 will not take place due to a mandatory postponement.

In the same way, pursuant to Article 1(2), time limits for exercising judicial acts within civil proceedings are automatically suspended for the period 9 to 22 March 2020. Where a time limit would normally begin during the period of suspension, the starting point is delayed until the end of the latter period.

Despite the urgency of the situation, some exceptional rules are provided under Article 2 of the decree. Both the mandatory postponement of hearings and the suspension of time limits do not concern some categories of proceedings that deal with urgent issues. In this regard, Article 2(2)(g) lists the following exceptions: determinations as to the adoptability of children, matters relating unaccompanied minors, the removal of minors from their family and situations of serious prejudices; matters relating to maintenance obligations; provisional measures affecting fundamental rights; decisions regarding compulsory health treatments; matters in respect of the voluntary termination of pregnancy; measures of protection from domestic violence; measures of expulsion; decision on provisional enforceability of judgments before Courts of Appeal and the Court of Cassation; all matters entailing the risk of serious prejudice to the parties.

Furthermore, Article 2(1) provides that the presidents of individual courts may adopt technical and organisational measures aimed to respond to health concerns while ensuring, as far as practical, the proper administration of justice.

The following measures, among others, may be adopted for the above purposes: purely organisational measures such as limitations to the access to, or the opening hours of, courthouses; guidelines as regards the conduct of hearings; exceptions to the publicity of hearings in civil matters; the use of IT technologies in court hearings; the postponement of non urgent hearings.

Some comments

The decree impacts on some fundamental principles of civil procedure (e.g. the right of defense, the equality of arms, the reasonable length of the proceedings) enshrined in the Italian Constitution, the Charter of Fundamental rights of the European Union and the European Convention on Human rights. It aims at ensuring a balance between the right to health and health care (recognized at a constitutional and European level by the Charter of Fundamental rights and the European Convention on Human Rights) and the rights of the parties in the context of civil proceedings.

Despite the urgency and uncertainty of the situation, it is indeed important to ensure the respect of the fundamental procedural rights of the parties. In this regard, the decree suspends limitation periods to file a claim with the court and procedural time limits for the exercise of parties’ rights in order not to undermine parties’ prerogatives. The lapse of time is “locked” and in principle, this does not entail negative consequences for the parties in the proceedings.

However, some doubts on the interpretation of the text of the decree arise. In such a technical question as time limits, clear indications are needed as regards, in particular, the calculation of time limits.

Namely, the decree refers to “time limits … within the proceedings”. Which time limits are concerned, precisely? Does the suspension of time limits apply to all pending legal disputes (including the objections against injunctions and the appeal procedure) or does it apply only to those legal disputes in which hearings were fixed in the period 9 to 22 March 2020 and that have been postponed by the decree?

For instance, if no hearing is scheduled , but the deadline to submit an appeal before the Court of Appeal expires on 11 March, is the time to appeal suspended? Arguably, the first reading should be preferred, since it allows the parties to better safeguard and protect their rights.

If the first reading were adopted, another issue would arises: how should time limits be calculated retroactively if they expire within the period of suspension? For instance, if a time limit expires on 11 March, what would be the new expiry date? The expiry date, it is argued, should be 24 March (9+2/22+2), as the suspension period is to be applied.

In the meantime, the Government’s department for the relations with the Parliament in an explanatory note delivered on 11 March has indicated that the broad interpretation suspending time limits in all pending legal disputes should apply.

However, the note has no binding effect as such and does not bridge the existing legal gap. As required by the Italian Bar Council, the Italian legislator should intervene to guarantee certainty.

As the immediate conversion of the decree into law seems to be difficult, the government may provide for an authentic interpretation of the rules at stake. This would ensure that the parties’ legitimate expectations on the proper administration of justice are not undermined or frustrated.

The foreign proceedings, it is contended, should then prevail on the ground that they were brought first. The fact that the justice system in one EU Member State has come to a stand-still cannot entail that other Member States have to stop their systems, too. That would run counter the interest of the parties.

Finally, some considerations may be made on the implications of this emergency legislation for judicial cooperation at the European level. These uncertainties on time limits will inevitably entail uncertainty in cross-border cases. As Italian procedural law applies under the lex fori principle, the parties must act in accordance with Italian procedural time limits including these extraordinary rules provided by the law decree. As issues arise for parties in the context of national proceedings, in the same way they will spill over in cross-border settings.

In this respect, it is interesting to underline that some European instruments in the field of judicial cooperation in civil matters provide for strict time limits (e.g. Article 5(3) of the Small Claims Regulation or Article 18 of the Regulation on the European Account Preservation Order).

What happens to those time limits if the Italian law applies under the lex fori principle? Are they suspended in the period 9 to 22 March according to the Law decree? In order to safeguard the rights of the parties, which are even more at risk in cross-border cases, it would be reasonable to suspend also these time limits. However, the Italian legislator is not competent to suspend time limits laid down in EU Regulations. Should the European legislator intervene?

Another key issue, which may have negative consequences in cross border cases, concerns Article 32 of the Brussels I bis Regulation, which provides for an autonomous definition of the time in which a court is deemed to be seized of a dispute. May we consider that an Italian Court is seized of a dispute during the period 9 to 22 March? The same considerations pointed out above can be reiterated: the activity of Italian courts should, in principle, be suspended, but as we are dealing with a concept laid down in a European Regulation, the Italian lawmaker cannot provide for exceptional rules applying to the Brussels I bis Regulation. This is again an open question, which shines a light on the risk that the lis pendens rule may be frustrated.

To conclude, as Covid-19 spreads out throughout the EU, the exceptional situation may lead other Member States to adopt urgent measures to contain the spread of the virus. As the system of judicial cooperation in civil matters is based on mutual trust and the application of provisions under the law of the Member State of origin, the question arises how the EU procedural law system may react to the introduction of extraordinary measures.

Judicial cooperation in civil matters, indeed, is based on the assumption that there is no state of emergency. Thus, if Member States start to introduce exceptional procedural rules in their own systems, there is the high risk that the EU procedural system would not be ready to face emergency measures. The EU should arguably allow Member States a certain degree of flexibility at least to provide exceptional rules for the urgent circumstances at stake.

Il faut retenir de cet arrêt que se rend complice de la contravention de tapage nocturne, la personne qui, présente à son domicile, laisse se perpétrer des bruits troublant la tranquillité d’autrui. 

en lire plus

Cour d'appel de Paris, 4 mars 2020

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 5 novembre 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Besançon, 22 janvier 2020

Accident du travail

Sécurité sociale - Cotisations

Travail dissimulé - Cotisations