Agrégateur de flux

Selon un arrêt de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne du 5 juin 2018, l’administrateur d’une page fan sur Facebook est conjointement responsable avec Facebook du traitement des données personnelles des visiteurs de sa page.

en lire plus

Professor Daniel Girsberger of the University of Lucerne is seeking to employ a Senior Research Assistant to work on a global project on Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts. The part-time position is funded by the Swiss National Research Fund (SNF), initially for a period of three years. It is envisaged that the successful candidate would work from the University of Lucerne (and/or Geneva).

The successful candidate will:

– be a lawyer
– have very good credentials
– have completed a doctoral dissertation or be an advanced doctoral candidate
– be multilingual: ideally a native (or otherwise an excellent) English speaker with excellent English writing skills, and with very good writing (and good speaking) skills in German and at least two other languages, such as French and Spanish
– have specific research and practical skills, experience and an interest in:
o private international law on a domestic as well as regional or global level
o (ideally) international arbitration
o international instruments in the area of commercial law (such as the CISG, UNIDROIT Principles, New York Convention 1958 and Hague Conference instruments)
– have very good practical skills in using legal databases (search and management of such databases) and electronic data processing
– be very well organized and have very good communication skills to communicate with legal academics from all over the world.

Enquiries and applications (CV and covering letter) should be directed to Daniel Girsberger: Daniel.Girsberger@unilu.ch.

Applications close on 31 August 2018.

A link to the advertisement on SSRN is available here.

Last Thursday, the ECJ rendered a short (and rather unsurprising) decision on the interpretation of Art 20(2) Brussels I (= 22(2) of the Recast Regulation). In Petronas Lubricants (Case C 1/17), the Court held that an employer can rely on the provision to bring a counter-claim in the courts chosen by the employee even where said claim has been assigned to the employer after the employee had initiated proceedings.

The question had been referred to the ECJ in the context of a dispute between an employee, Mr Guida, and his two former employers, Petronas Lubricants Italy and Petronas Lubricants Poland. Mr Guida’s parallel employment contracts with these two companies had been terminated among allegations of wrongly claimed reimbursements. Mr Guida, who is domiciled in Poland, had sued his Italian employer in Italy for wrongful dismissal and his employer had brought a counter-claim for repayment of the sums Mr Guida had allegedly wrongfully received, which had been assigned by the Polish employer.

Art 20(2) Brussels I contains an exception to the rule in Art 20(1), according to which an employee can only be sued in the courts of their country of domicile, to allow the employer to bring a counter-claim in the courts chosen by the employee. Similar exceptions can be found in Art 12(2) Brussels I (= Art 14(2) of the Recast; for insurance contracts) and Art 16(3) Brussels I (= Art 18(3) of the Recast; for consumer contracts), all of which incorporate the ground for special jurisdiction provided in Art 6 No 3 Brussels I (= Art 8(3) of the Recast). In the present case, the ECJ had to decide whether this exception would also be available for counter-claims that had been assigned to the employer after the employee had initiated proceedings.

The Court answered this question in the affirmative, pointing out that

[28] … provided that the choice by the employee of the court having jurisdiction to examine his application is respected, the objective of favouring that employee is achieved and there is no reason to limit the possibility of examining that claim together with a counter-claim within the meaning of Article 20(2) [Brussels I].

At the same time, the Court emphasised that a counter-claim can only be brought in the court chosen by the employee if it fulfils the more specific requirements of Art 6 No 3 Brussels I, according to which the counter-claim must have arisen ‘from the same contract or facts on which the original claim was based’. This has recently been interpreted by the ECJ (in Case C-185/15 Kostanjevec) as requiring that both claims have ‘a common origin’ (see [29]–[30] of the decision). Where this is the case – as it was here (see [31]–[32]) –, it does not matter that the relevant claims have only been assigned to the employer after the employee had initiated proceedings (see [33]).

そもそも、債務整理とはひとつの作業ではありません。債務を整理する上で有効な手段の総称こそが、この債務整理です。そのため、債務整理を理解する上では手段それぞれをしっかり把握しておくことが欠かせません。以下にて、代表的なものを紹介していきます。

たとえば、過払い請求です。テレビCMなどで紹介されることも増えてきているため、耳にしたことがある人も少なくないのではないでしょうか。これは、貸金業者に対して支払った、本来払う必要のなかった額を取り戻すための債務整理です。

次に、任意整理です。借金の減額や金利の引き直しに繋がる方法となっており、負担の軽減に期待が持てます。過払い請求にも関係が深く、この任意整理により過払い金が判明するといったケースも少なくありません。裁判所を通さない手続きであるため、比較的手軽という点も特徴です。

借金がどうしても返せなくなった場合、自己破産に至ります。財産がないことを裁判所に認めてもらうことで借金支払い義務が免除されます。ですが、住宅や車といった高価な財産を手放さなければならないという大きなデメリットが生じるのも特徴です。

そこへきて、民事再生に関しては幾分か負担が少ないです。返済困難な状況を認めてもらうことで、減額や分割返済が利用できるようになります。またこの場合、財産などを手放す必要はありません。

Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Poitiers, 11 janvier 2018 - Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux, 18 janvier 2018 - Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Rennes, 23 janvier 2018 - Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Marseille - contentieux des élections professionnelles, 24 janvier 2018