Agrégateur de flux

On February 25, 2015, the German Federal Labour Court had referred questions relating to the interpretation of Art. 9 Rome I to the CJEU (see here). In the context of a wage claim made by a Greek national who is employed by the Hellenic Republic at a Greek primary school in Germany, the German Federal Labour Court faced the problem whether to apply the Greek Saving Laws No 3833/2010 and 3845/2010 as overriding mandatory provisions. The claimant, Mr. Nikiforidis, had argued that, as a teacher who is employed in Germany under a contract governed by German law, he did not have to accept the wage cuts imposed on his Greek colleagues working in the Hellenic Republic. For a closer analysis, see the earlier post by Lisa Günther here.

In its decision of October 18, 2016 – C-135/15 (available here), the CJEU held (at para 50) that Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation must be interpreted “as precluding the court of the forum from applying, as legal rules, overriding mandatory provisions other than those of the State of the forum or of the State where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed. Consequently, since, according to the referring court, Mr. Nikiforidis’s employment contract has been performed in Germany, and the referring court is German, the latter cannot in this instance apply, directly or indirectly, the Greek overriding mandatory provisions which it sets out in the request for a preliminary ruling “. According to the CJEU, the duty of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU does not modify this restrictive approach. The Court went on, however, to confirm the practice established by German courts of taking foreign mandatory rules into account as a matter of fact (at para 52): “On the other hand, Article 9 of the Rome I Regulation does not preclude overriding mandatory provisions of a State other than the State of the forum or the State where the obligations arising out of the contract have to be or have been performed from being taken into account as a matter of fact, in so far as this is provided for by a substantive rule of the law that is applicable to the contract pursuant to the regulation.” Finally, the CJEU reached the conclusion (at para. 53) that “[a]ccordingly, the referring court has the task of ascertaining whether Laws No 3833/2010 and No 3845/2010 are capable of being taken into account when assessing the facts of the case which are relevant in the light of the substantive law applicable to the employment contract at issue in the main proceedings.“ For a critical evaluation of this decision, see the comment by Geert van Calster here.

On April 26, 2017, the Federal Labour Court delivered its final decision in this case (5 AZR 962/13; the German press release is available here). Although the CJEU has, as a general principle, allowed German courts to take foreign mandatory laws into account as a matter of fact, the Federal Labour Court respectfully declines to follow this path in the particular case because substantive German labour law does not provide for a suitable point of entry for the Greek saving laws. Under German labour law, an employee is – unless specifically agreed between the parties – not obliged to accept permanent wage cuts merely because his employer is in financial difficulties. Seen in this light, the preliminary reference of February 2015 has, at least partially, a certain hypothetical flavour to it – nevertheless, the methodological clarifications made by the CJEU will be helpful in future cases.

L’objectif poursuivi par le mécanisme de l’ICE consiste à améliorer le fonctionnement démocratique de l’UE en conférant à tout citoyen un droit général de participer à la vie démocratique et commande de retenir une interprétation de la notion d’acte juridique qui inclut une décision d’ouverture de négociations en vue de la conclusion d’un accord international.

en lire plus

Cour d'appel de Bastia, 16 février 2017

Bail à nourriture - contrats et obligations conventionnelles

The 1965 Hague Convention on Service of Process is one of the cornerstone treaties for international litigation. It provides a simple and effective process to provide due notice of a proceeding in one signatory state to a party in another, via a designated Central Authority in each signatory state. Nevertheless, one provision has vexed U.S. courts for decades. Article 10 provides that, notwithstanding the Central Authority procedures, and “[p]rovided the State of destination does not object, the present Convention shall not interfere with. . . the freedom to send judicial documents, by postal channels, directly to persons abroad.” By virtue of the fact that the provision says “send” and not the magic word “serve,” U.S. Courts have long disagreed over whether the Convention’s procedures preclude international service of process by mail.

Today, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the question, and held that the Hague Service Convention does not prohibit service of process by mail. This permissive reading serves to increase the practical utility of the Convention around the world.

The opinion is available here, and it is a fairly straightforward exercise in treaty interpretation by Justice Alito. He starts with the “treaty’s text and the context in which its words are used,” as well as the overall “structure of the Convention” to divine the meaning of Article 10. To buttress his permissive interpretation, he then discusses “three extratextual sources [that] are especially helpful in ascertaining Article 10(a)’s meaning”: the Convention’s drafting history, the interpretation of the U.S. Executive Branch, and that of other signatories to the Convention.

As a practical matter, though, this decision doesn’t necessarily open the mailboxes of the world to liberal service of process. Rather, service by mail is still only permissible if the receiving state has not objected to service by mail (some do by way of reservations) and if such service is authorized under otherwise-applicable law. In this case, because the Court of Appeals concluded that the Convention prohibited service by mail, it did not consider whether Texas law authorizes the methods of service. That question was sent back to the lower courts to consider on remand.

L’article 22 du règlement Bruxelles I, selon lequel sont seuls compétents, en matière de validité ou de nullité des sociétés ayant leur siège sur le territoire d’un État membre, les tribunaux de cet État membre, ne s’applique pas lorsque l’action tend au paiement de sommes d’argent.

en lire plus

Investment treaty claims arising out of judicial conduct—whether based on annulment of a contract for corruption or other irregularity or a fundamental jurisprudential shift—have been on the rise. To a foreign investor affected by such judicial measures, it is not always clear, however, what judicial measures can be subject to a claim under investment treaty law; which theory of liability is appropriate for a state’s liability arising out of judiciary’s conduct (or omissions); and which policy issues these different theories of liability raise.
This TDM special, thus, will be a unique, timely, and significant contribution to the current debate on investment treaty claims arising out of judicial measures. The special will explore the legal dimensions of judicial measures and potential theories for a state’s liability under investment treaty law, as well as the appropriate remedy for illegal judicial measures.

This special issue will be edited by Rajat Rana (Dechert LLP) and Nicole Silver (Winston & Strawn LLP). The call for papers can also be found on the TDM website here

Au sens de la convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980, le droit de garde comprend le droit portant sur les soins de la personne de l’enfant et en particulier celui de décider de son lieu de résidence. Il peut être fait exception au retour immédiat de l’enfant s’il existe un risque de danger grave ou de création d’une situation intolérable.

en lire plus

Dans un arrêt du 10 mai 2017, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) interprète l’article 20 du Traité sur le fonctionnement de l’Union européenne (TFUE), relatif à la citoyenneté de l’Union.

en lire plus

AALS Section on Conflict of Laws Call for Papers – 2018 AALS Annual Meeting

The AALS Section on Conflict of Laws invites papers for its program entitled “Crossing Borders: Mapping the Future of Conflict of Laws Scholarship” at the AALS Annual Meeting, January 3-6, 2018, in San Diego.

TOPIC DESCRIPTION: Now more than ever, the challenges created by conflicting laws are figuring prominently in multiple areas of legal scholarship.  In subjects as diverse as state and federal regulation, technology and intellectual property, and commercial arbitration, scholars using a variety of methodological approaches are finding innovative ways to study conflict of laws problems.  This panel discussion will explore these emerging trends in conflicts scholarship, and their implications for future work in the field.  The Section Executive Committee welcomes papers that are theoretical, doctrinal, policy-oriented, or empirical.

ELIGIBILITY: All full-time faculty members of AALS member and fee-paid law schools are eligible to submit papers. Please note that presenters will be responsible for paying their registration fee and hotel and travel expenses.

SUBMISSION PROCEDURE: All submissions must be e-mailed, in Microsoft Word format, to Section Chair Jamelle Sharpe’s administrative assistant Ms. Angela Martin (aymartin@illinois.edu).  The title of the e-mail submission should read: “Submission – 2018 AALS Section on Conflict of Laws.” Please do not e-mail your submission directly to the Section Chair, or to any other member of the Section Executive Committee.

The Section Executive Committee will select up to five papers for presentation at the program.  There is no formal requirement as to the form or length of submissions. However, the Committee will give priority to more complete drafts as compared to abstracts. The Committee will only review anonymous submissions.  Accordingly, please redact your name, institution, and other identifying information from the submission itself; we will track your submission via the e-mail to which you attached it.

DEADLINES: Submissions must be e-mailed to Ms. Angela Martin no later than 6:00 p.m. EST on Friday, August 18, 2017. Authors of selected submissions will be notified no later than September 22, 2017. Complete drafts of the selected papers are due no later than December 8, 2017.

QUESTIONS: If you have any questions, please contact the Section Chair, Jamelle Sharpe, at jcsharpe@illinois.edu.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 2, chambre 7, 3 novembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Chambéry, chambre de l'instruction, 21 novembre 2016

Sécurité sociale

Many thanks to KU Leuven law student Dzsenifer Orosz (she is writing a paper on the issues for one of my conflict of laws courses) for alerting me to the French Conseil D’Etat having referred ‘right to be forgotten’ issues to the European Court of Justice.  I have of course on occasion reported the application of data protection laws /privacy issues on this blog (try ‘Google’ as a search on the blog’s search function). I also have a paper out on the case against applying the right to be forgotten to the .com domain, and with co-authors, one where we catalogue the application of RTBF until December 2016. See also my post on the Koln courts refusing application to .com.

The Conseil d’Etat has referred one or two specific Qs but also, just to be sure, has also asked the Court of Justice for general insight into how data protection laws apply to the internet. The Court is unlikely to offer such tutorial (not that it would not be useful). However any Advocate General’s opinion of course will offer 360 insight.

One to look forward to.

Geert.

Parental Care and the Best Interests of the Child in Muslim Countries, edited by / a cura di Nadjma Yassari, Lena-Maria Möller, Imen Gallala-Arndt, SPringer, 2017, ISBN 9789462651739, pp. 353, EUR 145,59

This book is the first analysis of parental care regimes in Muslim jurisdictions, both in a comparative and country-specific sense. It contains the proceedings of a workshop on Parental Care and the Best Interests of the Child in Muslim Countries that the Max Planck Research Group “Changes in God’s Law: An Inner-Islamic Comparison of Family and Succession Law” hosted in Rabat, Morocco in April 2015. This workshop saw a total of 15 country reports presented on questions of custody, guardianship and their development within different Muslim jurisdictions (ranging from Indonesia to Morocco), a number of which are included in full in the book. Each of these country reports contains a historical perspective on the evolution of domestic rules regarding custody and guardianship, and on the introduction and development of the notion of the best interests of the child. Most importantly, the prevailing legal norms, both substantive and procedural, are explored and particular attention is given to legal practice and the role of the judiciary. In addition to a selection of country reports from the workshop, the volume includes two comparative analyses on questions of parental care in both public and private international law. With a high practical relevance for legal practitioners working in the area of cross-border custody disputes and the most up-to-date assessment of parental care regimes beyond a pure analysis of statutory law, this book combines a number of country reports authored by experts who have worked or are still based in the respective countries they are reporting on and thus contains in-depth discussions of legal practice and custody law in action.