Agrégateur de flux

Vente - Cassation

Mariage - Défaut de consentement - Nullité -
Convention européenne des droits de l'Homme

Appel civil

The Seminar on Private International Law organized since 2007 at the Universidad Complutense of Madrid by Professors Fernández Rozas and De Miguel Asensio is an annual meeting devoted to private international law. This year the Seminar goes to Barcelona, where it will held on October 26 and 27, 2017.

This edition of the Seminar, entitled “Regulating economic activity in the international sphere and freedom of establishment (corporate law, tax law, competition law, private law and arbitration law)”, will deal with the regulation of the economic activity in an international framework and its relationship with the freedom of establishment recognized by EU law. The goal is to bring together specialists in private international law, tax law and commercial law as well as law practitioners in order to analyze the current situation of the regulation of economic activity in Europe.

In addition to this central issue, there will be room for the study of the regulation of economic activity in other geographical areas (America, Asia …), and of arbitration as a fundamental tool both for resolving conflicts between economic operators, as well as between investors and states.

The Seminar welcomes the presentation of papers on any topic related to one of the panels, in Spanish, English or French. A summary (900 words) and a basic bibliography must be submitted to the Scientific Committee before September 15, to this address: rafael.arenas@uab.cat. The Scientific Committee will select the papers to be presented at the Seminar by September 29. The final version must be delivered on October 20 at the latest.

The Seminar will include the following panels:

1. Establishment of Companies (perspective of PIL)

Main speaker: Prof. Dr. Jessica Schmidt, Professor of Civil Law and German, European and International Law of Companies and Capital Markets (University of Bayreuth, Germany)

2. Establishment of Companies (perspective of Commercial Law)

Main speaker: Prof. Dr. Andrés Recalde Castells, Professor of Commercial Law at the Autonomous University of Madrid

3. Tax issues

Main speaker: Prof. Dr. Cristina García Herrera-Blanco, Financial and Tax Law Adviser, Institute of Fiscal Studies

4. Economic law (free competition, unfair competition and administrative regulation of economic activity)

Main speakers: Prof. Dr. Amadeo Petitbó Juan, Professor of Applied Economics; Prof. Dr. Barry Rodger, Professor of Law at Strathclyde University in Glasgow (United Kingdom).

5. Freedom of establishment and private law

Main speaker: Prof. Dr. Gerry Maher, Professor of Law at the University of Edinburgh (UK)

6. Regulation of economic activity and private law outside the EU

Main speaker: to be confirmed

7. Arbitration

Main speaker: Prof. Dr. José Carlos Fernández Rozas, Professor of Private International Law at the Universidad Complutense de Madrid.

L’8 e il 9 giugno 2017 si terrà all’Università di Milano-Bicocca un seminario pratico sul tema della sottrazione internazionale di minori, nel quadro del progetto EU Judiciary Training on Brussels IIa Regulation: from South to East, co-finanziato dalla Commissione europea e guidato da Costanza Honorati.

Intervengono Martina Erb-Klünemann (Tribunale di Hamm), Maria Domenica Maggi (psicologa e giudice onorario presso il Tribunale dei minorenni di Milano), Sara Lembrechts e Katrien Herbots (KeKi – Children’s Right Knowledge Centre di Ghent), Michael Ford (MiKK – International Mediation Centre for Family Conflict and Child Abduction), Costanza Honorati (Univ. Milano-Bicocca), Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona), Cristina Gonzalez Beilfuss e Maria Alvarez Torné (Univ. Barcellona), Mirela Zupan (Univ. Osijek), Ivana Kunda (Univ. Rijeka), Agne Limante (Law Institute of Lithuania).

La locandina dell’evento è disponibile qui.

Ergo, Brogsitter, Granarolo...There is a long list of cases in which the CJEU is asked to decide whether a relationship between parties is contractual, with special jurisdiction determined by Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast Regulation, or one in tort, subject to Article 7(2) of same.

In C-249/16 Saale Kareda v Stefan Benkö Bot AG opined end of April. The Court is asked to rule on whether a recourse claim brought between jointly and severally liable debtors under a credit agreement constitutes a contractual claim. And if it is, the Court will have to examine whether such an agreement may be classified as an agreement for the provision of services, which will, as the case may be, lead it to determine the place of performance of its characteristic obligation.

I still think that what I dubbed the ancestry or pedigree test of Sharpston AG in Ergo, is a most useful litmus test to distinguish between 7(1) and 7(2):  what is the ancestry of the action, without which the parties concerned would not be finding themselves pleading in a court of law?: she uses ‘centre of gravity’ (‘the centre of gravity of the obligation to indemnify is in the contractual obligation’); ‘rooted in’ (‘the recourse action by one insurer against the other…is rooted in the contracts of insurance’); and ‘intimately bound up’ (‘[the action] is intimately bound up with the two insurers’ contractual obligation‘). (at 62 of her Opinion in Ergo). I am not sure though whether the Court itself follows the test.

Before the Austrian courts, Stefan Benkö, an Austrian national, is bringing a recourse claim against Saale Kareda, an Estonian national and his former partner, seeking payment of EUR 17 145.41 plus interest and costs. While they were living together in Austria, the applicant and the defendant bought a house in 2007 and for that purpose took out three loans totalling EUR 300 000 (‘the loan’) from an Austrian bank. They were both borrowers and the referring court states that they were both jointly and severally liable debtors. Ms Kareda broke up with Mr Benkö, moved back to Estonia, and ceased her loan payments. Being sued for the arrear payments by MR Benko, she now claims that the Landesgericht St. Pölten (Regional Court, St. Pölten), the court seised by the applicant, lacked territorial jurisdiction in so far as the loan was made by an Austrian bank and the place of performance for that loan, the bank’s registered office, is not located in the judicial district of that court.

Is it possible to ‘detach’ from the credit agreement the legal relationships arising between jointly and severally liable debtors following the conclusion of that agreement, or does this form an inseparable whole? (at 28) Bot AG suggests it is the latter and I believe he is right. I agree that it would be artificial, for the purposes of the application of the Brussels I Recast. to separate those legal relationships from the agreement which gave rise to them and on which they are based.

I am less convinced by the reference, at 32 and 33, to the need for consistency between Brussels I Recast and Rome I: regular readers of this blog will not be surprised by this. (But I believe I am fighting a losing battle there). The AG refers to Article 16 of Rome I, entitled ‘Multiple liability’, which provides inter alia that, ‘[i]f a creditor has a claim against several debtors who are liable for the same claim, and one of the debtors has already satisfied the claim in whole or in part, the law governing the debtor’s obligation towards the creditor also governs the debtor’s right to claim recourse from the other debtors’.

Having decided that the issue is contractual, the AG suggests the credit agreement is an agreement for the provision of services, and that in the context of a credit agreement, the characteristic obligation leading to jurisdiction is the actual granting of the sum loaned. The other obligation entailed by such an agreement, namely the borrower’s obligation to repay the sum loaned, exists only through the performance of the service by the lender, as repayment is merely its consequence.

The final element to consider is then the actual place of performance of the characteristic obligation. In the AG’s view, only the place where the creditor has its place of business is capable of ensuring that the rules are highly predictable and of satisfying the objectives of proximity and standardisation pursued by the second indent of Article 7(1)(b) of Regulation No 1215/2012.  That place will be known by the parties from the time of the conclusion of the agreement and will also be the place of the court having the closest connection with that agreement. (at 46).

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9

Il 23 giugno 2017 si terrà a Lucca un seminario pratico sul regolamento (UE) n. 1215/2012 concernente la competenza giurisdizionale, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (Bruxelles I bis).

Durante il seminario, organizzato nel contesto del progetto European Civil Procedure for Lawyers (su cui vedi questo post), gli avvocati saranno chiamati a partecipare attivamente alla discussione e risoluzione di casi pratici in applicazione del regolamento n. 1215/2012.

Tra i relatori Giampaolo Benedetti Pearson (foro di Lucca), Elena D’Alessandro (Univ. Torino) e Silvana Dalla Bontà (Univ. Trento).

La locandina dell’evento è reperibile qui.

Chose jugée

Many thanks to Jan von Hein for flagging the ultimate judgment (the link is to a press release) of the Bundesarbeitsgericht in Nikiforidis. I had of course reported earlier my serious misgivings about the CJEU’s judgment in same, upon preliminary review.

The judgment eventually declined to employ the opening left by the CJEU, to take Greek law into account ‘as a matter of fact’. Thank you, but no thank you: there was no suitable point of entry in German law to take account of the Greek austerity laws. Still, as Jan points out, the judgment in Luxembourg undoubtedly will feature as precedent in future cases.

Geert.

The European Parliament’s Committee on Legal Affairs (Rapporteur Tadeusz Zwiefka) published their Draft Report on the Commission’s Proposal for the Recast of EC Regulation 2201/2003 (Brussels IIa or Brussels IIbis).

Regarding the jurisdiction, the main points are:

• moving back to the perpetuatio fori in cases where the child moves, while the Commission has proposed to insert: “Where a child moves lawfully from one Member State to another and acquires a new habitual residence there, the authorities of the Member State of the new habitual residence shall have jurisdiction.“
• Inserting a rule that provisional measures lapse automatically only after the final judgment has been notified to the authority in another Member State that took the provisional measures, rather than when they are issued.

Other than this, there are more obligations on mutual cooperation and direct communication to enhance the effectiveness of proceedings. For instance, the rule that a court may ask a court in another Member State on which date it was seised for purposes of lis pendens and that this other court must respond, is taken over from Brussels I (Recast).

This is not the end of the long and windy recasting road, but merely another step on it.

The Draft Report, 2016/0190(CNS), is available here.

The Commission’s Proposal, COM(2016) 411 final, which you will have to read together with the Draft Report, is available here.

The Duke Journal of Comparative & International Law has just published a symposium issue on the importance of international law and comparative law for the American Law Institute’s new Conflict of Laws Restatement project.  Professors Ralf Michaels and Christopher Whytock have a Foreword entitled Internationalizing the New Conflict of Laws Restatement.  Here is the Table of Contents for the complete issue:

International Conflict of Laws and the New Conflict of Laws Restatement

Donald Earl Childress III

Determining the Territorial Scope of State Law in Interstate and International Conflicts: Comments on the Draft Restatement (Third) and on the Role of Party Autonomy

Hannah L. Buxbaum

The Transnational Case in Conflict of Laws: Two Suggestions for the New Restatement Third of Conflict of Laws—Judicial Jurisdiction over Foreign Defendants and Party Autonomy in International Contracts

Linda J. Silberman and Nathan D. Yaffe

How “International” Should a Third Conflicts Restatement Be in Tort and Contract?

Patrick J. Borchers

Marriage and Divorce Conflicts in the International Perspective

Ann Laquer Estin

Children Crossing Borders: Internationalizing the Restatement of the Conflict of Laws

Louise Ellen Teitz

Cour d'appel de Pau, chambre correctionnelle, 18 mai 2017

In the recent issue of the Netherlands International Law Review (NILR) three articles on private international law issues were published.

Peter Mankowski (The European World of Insolvency Tourism: Renewed, But Still Brave?, NILR 2017/1, p. 95-114) discusses the cross border insolvency tourism under the Insolvency Regulation. He also pays attention to the upcoming changes after Brexit to the Recast Insolvency Regulation.

The abstract of his article reads:

“Insolvency tourism and COMI migration have become key features in modern European international insolvency law. Fostered, in particular, by the ingenuity of the English insolvency industry. Yet it has not gone unanswered. The Recast European Insolvency Regulation introduces a not insignificant number of counter-measures as well as an antidote in the shape of a look-back period. Furthermore, as a prospective aftermath of Brexit, the race is on once more in the field of pre-insolvency restructuring measures.”

Marek Zilinsky (Mutual Trust and Cross-Border Enforcement of Judgments in Civil Matters in the EU: Does the Step-by-Step Approach Work?, NILR 2017/1, p. 116-139)  deals with the question on the implementation of the principle of mutual trust in different EU instruments in the field of cross border recognition and enforcement of judgments. He points out that the EU legislator has chosen different approaches for implementation. Special attention is paid to three instruments: the Brussels I Regulation Recast, the Brussels IIbis Regulation and the Maintenance Regulation.

The abstract of this article reads:

“Mutual trust is one of the cornerstones of cooperation in the field of European Union private international law. Based on this principle the rules on the cross-border recognition and enforcement of judgments in the European Union are still subject to simplification. The step-by-step approach of the implementation of this principle led to the abolition of the exequatur, often accompanied by a partial harmonization of enforcement law to improve and support the smooth working of cross-border enforcement without exequatur. In this regard, it seems that the Member States still want to have control over the ‘import’ of judgments which results in maintaining the ground for non-recognition and the possibility of relying on them in the Member State of enforcement. This article considers the implementation of the principle of mutual recognition in three areas of justice: civil and commercial matters, family law and maintenance. In these areas the European Union legislator has chosen three different approaches for the implementation of this principle.”

Jacobien Rutgers (NILR 2017/1, p. 163-175) discusses the VKI/Amazon Case of the European Court of Justice (Case C-191/15) where the Court gave its interpretation of Art 6(1) of the Rome II regulation and Art 6(1) Rome I Regulation in a procedure started by a consumer organization based on allegedly unfair terms in general terms and conditions of the seller.

The abstract to this article reads:

“In Amazon the CJEU decided which conflict rules applied to a claim in collective proceedings that was initiated by a consumer organization to prohibit allegedly unfair terms contained in the general terms and conditions of a seller. The terms were used in electronic b2c contracts, where the seller targeted consumers in their home country. The CJEU distinguished between the conflict rule concerning collective action, Article 6(1) Rome II, and the conflict rule concerning the fairness of the term, Article 6(2) Rome I. In addition, the CJEU introduced a new test to assess the fairness of a choice-of-law term under Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms. In the note, it is argued that the CJEU’s distinction between those two conflict rules is unnecessary and that the test that the CJEU formulated to assess whether a choice-of-law term is unfair, is less favourable to the consumer than the tests formulated in prior decisions.”

The text of the articles is free available on the website of the publisher of the Netherlands International Review.

Thanks go to Marek Zilinsky for providing the above-noted abstracts.