Agrégateur de flux

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 16 mai 2019

Tribunal correctionnel de Châlons-en-Champagne, 15 mai 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles, 13 novembre 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Poitiers, chambre de l'instruction, 7 mai 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, chambre 13, pôle 6, 7 décembre 2018

Tribunal de grande instance d'Épinal, 17 mai 2019

Conseil de prud'hommes d'Evry-Courcouronnes, 17 mai 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, chambre 11, pôle 4, 8 mars 2019

Apologie d'actes de terrorisme

Action civile

Glawischnig-Piesczek
Liberté d'établissement
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, Facebook peut être contrainte de rechercher et d’identifier tous les commentaires identiques à un commentaire diffamatoire dont l’illicéité a été constatée, ainsi que des commentaires équivalents pour autant que ces derniers proviennent du même utilisateur

Bobek AG opined end of May in C-198/18 CeDe Group v KAN. I am posting a touch late for well, readers will know I have not been fiddling my thumbs. The Opinion concerns the lex causae for set-off in accordance with the (2000) Insolvency Regulation – provisions for which have not materially changed in the current version of the EIR (Regulation 2015/848). At stake are Articles 4 cq 6 and 7 cq 9 in the two versions of the Insolvency Regulation.

The liquidator of PPUB Janson sp.j. (‘PPUB’), a Polish company the subject of insolvency proceedings in Poland, lodged before the Swedish courts an application against CeDe Group AB (‘CeDe’), a Swedish company, claiming payment for goods delivered under a pre-existing contract between PPUB and CeDe, which is governed by Swedish law. In the course of those proceedings, CeDe claimed a set-off in respect of a larger debt owed to it by PPUB. The liquidator had previously refused that set-off within the framework of the Polish insolvency proceedings. During the course of the procedure before the Swedish courts, PPUB’s liquidator assigned the claim against CeDe to another company, KAN sp. z o.o. (‘KAN’), which subsequently became insolvent. However, KAN’s liquidator refused to take over the claim at issue, with the result that KAN (in insolvency) is now party to the litigation

The Supreme Court, Sweden) doubts the law applicable to such a set-off claim. Before the referring court, KAN claimed that the set-off claim should be heard under Polish law, whereas CeDe submitted that that issue should be examined under Swedish law. Both of course reverse-engineered their arguments to support opposing views.

The Advocate General in trademark lucid style navigates the facts and issues (not helped by the little detail seemingly given by the referring court). Complication is of course that the general Gleichlauf rule of the EIR is repeatedly tempered by ad hoc regimes for specific claims or claimants. Like the Commission, Bobek AK focuses on the Regulation’s stated aim (recital 26 of the 2000 EIR; recital 70  in the 2015 EIR) of having the set-off regime fulfill its role as a guarantee for international commercial transactions: at 74: ‘adopting an approach focused on the concrete outcomes produced by the respective applicable laws in conflict in a given case, the test to be applied must zero in on the specific solution that would be arrived at by the law applicable to the main claim’.

An Opinion very much soaked in commercial reality.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5, Heading 5.7.

Et la lumière vint lundi de Patrick Balkany. S’il a visité des villas au Maroc, c’était à la demande du bras droit de Mohamed Al Jaber. Selon celui-ci, le milliardaire saoudien, alors en affaires avec la ville de Levallois-Perret, risquait gros dans son pays. Il fallait lui trouver « une planque ». Une explication nouvelle dont il n’avait jamais fait part durant l’instruction.

en lire plus