Agrégateur de flux

Assurance dommages - ouvrage

Bail d'habitation

Sécurité sociale, accident du travail

Sécurité sociale, cotisations et contributions du régime général

Sécurité sociale, accident du travail

Sécurité sociale, accident du travail

Chose jugée

Sécurité sociale, prestations familiales

Construction immobilière

Construction immobilière

Yanukovych / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Le Tribunal annule le gel des fonds de sept personnalités de l’ancienne classe dirigeante ukrainienne, dont M. Viktor Yanukovych, ancien président de l’Ukraine

Professor Matthias Lehmann, Director of the Institute for Private International and Comparative Law, University of Bonn, University of Bonn, Germany, is looking for one highly skilled and motivated PhD candidate and fellow (Wissenschaftliche/r Mitarbeiter/in) on a part-time basis (50%). The earliest starting date is 1 October 2019.

The successful candidate holds a first law degree, preferably from a jurisdiction outside of Germany. She or he is acquainted in the comparative and international dimensions of private law, and ideally also interested in questions of financial law, in particular the new problems raised by cryptocurrencies. An excellent command of English and a basic knowledge of German are required. Knowledge of another language as well as good IT skills are additional factors that may be taken into consideration.

The fellow will be given the opportunity to conduct his/her PhD project or post-doc project according to the Faculty’s regulations. The position is paid according to the German public salary scale E-13 TV-L, 50% (about 1300 Euro net per month). There will be an opportunity to increase the position and salary to 75% as of April 1, 2020 should the candidate wish to do so. The initial contract period is up to three years, with the option to have a shorter period or to renew it, according to the wishes of the candidate. Responsibilities include independent teaching obligations (2 hours per week during the semester in a subject of choice of the candidate) as supporting Professor Lehmann in his research and teaching.

If you are interested in this position, please send your application (cover letter in English; CV; and relevant documents and certificates, notably university transcripts and a copy of law degree) to lehrstuhl.lehmann@jura.uni-bonn.de by July 22, 2019. The University of Bonn is an equal opportunity employer.

Thank you Jan Jakob Bornheim for flagging Gray v Hurley [2019] EWHC 1636 (QB), in which as he puts it, ‘there is a lot going on’. Judgment is best referred to for facts of the case. On 25 March 2019 Mr Hurley commenced proceedings against Ms Gray in New Zealand. On 26 March 2019 Ms Gray issued the claim form in the present action and obtained an order for alternative service.

Of interest to the blog is first of all the matrimonial exception of Brussels Ia, nota bene recently applied by the CJEU in C-361/18 Weil. Article 1(2)(a) Brussels Ia (Lavender J using the English judges’ shorthand ‘Judgments Regulation’) provides that it does not apply to matters relating to: “…rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship or out of a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage.”

There is no EU-wide harmonisation of the conflict of law rules for matrimonial property. The UK is not party to the enhanced co-operation rules in the area and Lavender J did not consider any role these rules might play in same. Rome I and Rome II have a similar exception as Brussels Ia and at 111 Lavender J takes inspiration from Recital 10 Rome II which states that this exception “should be interpreted in accordance with the law of the Member State in which the court is seised.” Discussion ensues whether this is a reference to the substantive law of the court seized (Ms Gray’s position; English law does not deem their relationship to have comparable effects to marriage) or the private international law rules of same (Mr Hurley’s position; with in his view residual English private international law pointing to the laws of New Zealand, which does deem their relationship to have comparable effects to marriage). Lavender J does not say so expresses verbis but seems to side with the exclusion of renvoi: at 115: ‘I do not consider that the relationship between Ms Gray and Mr Hurley was a relationship deemed by the law applicable to such relationship to have comparable effects to marriage.’ Brussels Ia’s matrimonial exception therefore is not engaged.

Next, the application of the exclusive jurisdictional rule of Article 24(1) is considered. Ms Gray’s claim here essentially aims to establish her full ownership of the ‘San Martino’ property in Italy. Webb v Webb is considered, as are Weber v Weber and Komu v Komu (readers of the blog are aware that A24(1) cases often involve feuds between family members). Lavender J concludes that Ms Gray’s claim essentially is like Webb Sr’s in Webb v Webb: Ms Gray is not seeking an order for the sale of San Martino (and it does not appear that the right of pre-emption would be triggered by a judgment in her favour, as it would be by an order for sale). Nor is she seeking to give effect to her existing interest in San Martino. Rather, she claims that Mr Hurley holds his interest in San Martino on trust for her.

Application of Article 25 choice of court is summarily dismissed at 131 ff: there was choice of court and law (pro: Italy) in the preliminary sales and purchase agreement between the seller and Ms Gray. However, this clearly does not extend to the current dispute.

Next comes the application of Article 4’s domicile rule. Was Mr Hurley domiciled in England on 26 March 2019, when the court was seized?  Article 62(1) Brussels Ia refers to the internal law. Application is made by Lavender J of inter alia [2018] EWHC 160 (Ch), Shulman v Kolomoisky which I also included here; he also considers the implications of CJEU C-327/10 Lindner, and eventually decides that Mr Hurley was not domiciled in England, however that Lindner should be read as extending to the defendant’s last known domicile in a case where the Court: (1) is unable to identify the defendant’s place of domicile; and (2) has no firm evidence to support the conclusion that the defendant is in fact domiciled outside the European Union. This is a very relevant and interesting reading of Lindner, extending the reach of Brussels Ia as had been kickstarted by Owusu, with due deference to potential New Zealand jurisdiction (New Zealand domicile not having been established).

Final conclusion, therefore, is that Ms Hurley may rely on Article 4 Brussels Ia. Quite what impact this has on the New Zealand proceedings is not discussed.

Interesting judgment on many counts.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2 practically in its entirety.

 

České aerolinie
Transport
Vols avec correspondance au départ d’un État membre et à destination d’un État tiers via un autre État tiers et ayant fait l’objet d’une réservation unique : le transporteur aérien ayant effectué le premier vol est tenu d’indemniser les passagers ayant subi un retard important à l’arrivée du second vol réalisé par un transporteur aérien non communautaire

Commission / Grèce (Tsipouro)
Fiscalité
La législation grecque appliquant un taux d’accise réduit au tsipouro et à la tsikoudia fabriqués par les entreprises de distillation et un taux d’accise fortement réduit à ceux fabriqués par les petits distillateurs est contraire au droit de l’Union

PlasticsEurope / ECHA
Recherche, informations, éducation, statistiques
Confirmation de l’inscription du bisphénol A comme substance extrêmement préoccupante en raison de ses propriétés toxiques pour la reproduction

L’exercice du droit de visite des marchandises, des moyens de transport et des personnes prévu à l’article 60 du code des douanes ne peut donner lieu au maintien des personnes concernées à la disposition des agents des douanes au-delà de ce qui est strictement nécessaire à l’accomplissement de cette mesure et à l’établissement du procès-verbal qui la constate. Il en résulte qu’à l’issue de ce droit de visite, hors les cas où sont réunies les conditions permettant une retenue douanière, les agents des douanes ne sont pas autorisés à continuer à retenir la personne contrôlée contre son gré.

en lire plus

HQ e.a.
Transport
Les passagers qui disposent du droit de s’adresser à leur organisateur de voyages pour obtenir le remboursement de leurs billets d’avion n’ont pas la possibilité de demander également un remboursement auprès du transporteur aérien

Aubriet
Libre circulation des personnes
Les modalités de calcul de la durée minimale d’activité au Grand-Duché de Luxembourg, exigée par cet État membre, pour l’attribution d’une aide financière aux étudiants non-résidents, enfants de travailleurs frontaliers, sont contraires au droit de l’Union

Amazon EU
Environnement et consommateurs
Une plate-forme de commerce électronique comme Amazon n’est pas obligée dans tous les cas de mettre un numéro de téléphone à la disposition du consommateur avant la conclusion d’un contrat