Agrégateur de flux

Enquête préliminaire - officier de police judiciaire

Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005)

Impôts et taxes - Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005)

Transport aérien - Transport de personnes - Compétence territoriale de la juridiction

Transport aérien - Transport de personnes - Compétence territoriale de la juridiction

Propriété - Fonds d'archives - Caractère public ou privé

Private International Law – South Asian States’ Practice, edited by / a cura di S. R. Garimella, J. Stellina, Springer, 2017, ISBN 9789811034572, 442 pp., EUR 207,99.

This book shows how, with the increasing interaction between jurisdictions spearheaded by globalization, it is gradually becoming impossible to confine transactions to a single jurisdiction. Presented in the form of a compendium of essays by eminent academics and practitioners in the field, it provides a detailed overview of private, international law practice in South Asian nations, addressing contemporary discourse within this knowledge domain. Conflict of laws/private international law arises from the universal acknowledgment that it is difficult to govern human transactions solely by the local law. The research presented addresses the three major threads of private international law – jurisdiction, choice of law and enforcement – within each of the South Asian countries in the areas of family law and commercial law. The research in family law domain includes traditional areas such as marriage, divorce and maintenance, as well as some of the contemporary concerns in this region – inter-country child retrieval, surrogacy, and the country statement on accession to the Hague Conventions related to this domain. In commercial law the research explores the concerns raised with regard to choice of law issues in transnational contracts, and also enforcement of foreign judgment/arbitral awards in the nations of this region.

Le contrôle étatique des sentences arbitrales internationales, Jérémy Jourdan-Marques, L.G.D.J., 2017, ISBN 978-2-275-05552-7, 576 pp. Eur 56.

Par un étonnant paradoxe, le contrôle étatique des sentences arbitrales internationales conduit à réintroduire la justice étatique là où les parties avaient voulu l’exclure. Mais ce paradoxe pourrait n’être qu’apparent. Une approche fondée sur la distinction entre les intérêts publics et les intérêts privés ouvre de nouvelles perspectives. L’examen réalisé par le juge étatique l’invite à s’assurer, d’une part, du respect par les arbitres des intérêts privés des parties et, d’autre part, à contrôler la compatibilité de la sentence avec ses intérêts publics. Aussi paraît-il concevable que l’intérêt en cause puisse modifier directement la nature du contrôle exercé. Parallèlement, le juge compétent est tantôt indirectement désigné par les parties, tantôt déterminé par le lieu d’exécution de la sentence. Par conséquent, il est légitime d’assigner aux juges de l’annulation et de l’exequatur une mission distincte, mais complémentaire. Le juge de l’annulation examinerait les intérêts privés et le juge de l’exequatur garantirait la conformité de la sentence aux intérêts publics. En définitive, la distinction des intérêts privés et des intérêts publics pourrait devenir un instrument de redéfinition du contrôle étatique des sentences arbitrales internationales. À la fois plus respectueux de la volonté des parties, plus protecteur des intérêts étatiques et offrant une solution au désordre actuel du contrôle des sentences arbitrales, ce nouveau paradigme concourrait à l’efficacité de l’arbitrage.

En application du règlement du 18 décembre 2008, « un créancier d’aliments, qui a obtenu une décision en sa faveur dans un État membre et qui souhaite en obtenir l’exécution dans un autre État membre, peut présenter sa demande directement à l’autorité compétente de ce dernier État membre, telle qu’une juridiction spécialisée, et ne peut être tenu de soumettre sa demande à cette dernière par l’intermédiaire de l’autorité centrale de l’État membre d’exécution ».

en lire plus

Par un arrêt du 3 février 2017, le Tribunal de l’Union rappelle l’obligation de motivation qui incombe à la Commission européenne lors d’un refus d’enregistrement d’une proposition d’initiative citoyenne européenne (ICE).

en lire plus

Après avoir relevé le caractère international de l’arbitrage, la cour d’appel, qui n’avait pas à se référer à une loi étatique, en a exactement déduit, par une décision motivée, que la nature solidaire de l’obligation des parties au paiement des frais et honoraires des arbitres résultait du contrat d’arbitre.

en lire plus

La remise temporaire de l’intéressé, par les autorités judiciaires belges, aux autorités judiciaires françaises, n’avait pas mis fin aux effets du mandat d’arrêt délivré par le juge d’instruction et complété par un mandat d’arrêt européen du procureur compétent, le mandat initial ayant pour objet la remise définitive aux autorités françaises. 

en lire plus

Professor Gilles Cuniberti (University of Luxembourg) has authored a casebook entitled “Conflict of Laws – A Comparative Approach” which will be released this month by Edward Elgar Publishing.

The official abstract kindly provided by the publisher reads as follows:

“The Conflict of Laws, also known as private international law, is a field of the greatest importance in an increasingly globalized world. The analysis of any legal issue, in a case involving more than one country, must start with an assessment of which court could potentially hear the case and which law it would apply.

Contrary to other manuals or casebooks, which focus on the law of one jurisdiction, this innovative casebook offers a comparative treatment of the field. On each issue, materials from several jurisdictions are discussed and compared. The approach centers on comprehending the common principles of the field, but also highlights the fundamental differences. The goal is to train lawyers who not only will know the law of their own jurisdiction, but also will have an understanding of the key differences existing between the main models, and will thus be able to interact usefully with clients from other jurisdictions.

This casebook systematically presents and compares the laws of four jurisdictions: the United States, the European Union, France and England (where left untouched by EU harmonization). It offers additional insight into rules applicable in China and Japan and also discusses remarkable solutions adopted in a wide range of jurisdictions such as Italy, Germany, the Netherlands, Canada and Tunisia. All materials from non-English speaking jurisdictions have been translated into English.

Key features of the casebook:
• written by a leading authority in the field
• carefully selected extracts from primary and secondary sources build a clear picture of the field
• expert analytical commentary and questions set the extracts in context
• US, EU, French and English perspectives integrated throughout the text to ensure maximum relevance and encourage students to make comparative assessments
• numerous references to Chinese and Japanese solutions
• leads students through the field from beginning to end
• perfectly pitched for international students and courses with a global outlook.”

Further information, including a table of contents, is available on the publisher’s website.

The Court of Justice rendered on 16 February 2017 its judgment in Agro Foreign Trade & Agency Ltd v Petersime NV (Case C‑507/15), a case involving a commercial agency contract concluded between a Belgian principal and a Turkish agent. The contract had been submitted by the parties to Belgian law and featured a choice-of-forum clause conferring jurisdiction to the courts of Ghent, in Belgium.

The issue submitted to the Court concerned the interpretation of Directive 86/653 on the coordination of the laws of the Member States relating to self-employed commercial agents and of the 1963 Agreement establishing an association between the EU and Turkey, together with the Additional Protocol thereto.

Specifically, the Court was asked to determine whether the above texts preclude national legislation transposing the directive into the law of a Member State (Belgium, in the case at issue), which excludes from its scope of application a commercial agency contract in the context of which the agent is established in Turkey, where it carries out activities under that contract, and the principal is established in that Member State. The exclusion was such that, in the circumstances, the agent could not rely on rights which the directive guarantees to commercial agents after the termination of the contract.

The Court held that the Directive and the Association Agreement do not preclude such national legislation.

In its reasoning, the Court began by focusing on the scope of application of the Directive. Having noted that the situation of a contract between a EU principal and a non-EU agent is not expressly referred to in the Directive, the Court observed, relying on the second and third recitals of the Directive, that the harmonising measures provided thereunder seek to protect commercial agents in their relations with their principals, to eliminate restrictions on the carrying-on of the activities of commercial agents, to make the conditions of competition within the Community uniform, to promote the security of commercial transactions, and to facilitate trade in goods between Member States by harmonising their legal systems within the area of commercial representation.

It added that the purpose of the regime established in Articles 17 to 19 of the Directive is to protect freedom of establishment and the operation of undistorted competition in the internal market.

Accordingly, where the commercial agent carries out its activities outside the EU, the fact that the principal is established in a Member State does not present a sufficiently close link with the EU for the purposes of the application of the Directive.

The Court then moved on to determine whether the application of the Directive to commercial agents established in Turkey can follow from the Association Agreement.

The Court acknowledged that, pursuant to the Agreement, the provisions of the Treaties on the free movement of workers and the freedom to provide services must be extended, so far as possible, to Turkish nationals to eliminate restrictions on the freedom to provide services between the contracting parties.

It noted, however, that the interpretation given to the provisions of EU law concerning the internal market cannot be automatically applied by analogy to the interpretation of an agreement concluded by the EU with a non-Member State, and that the Association Agreement, which is intended essentially to promote the economic development of Turkey, does not establish any general principle of freedom of movement of persons between Turkey and the European Union. Its purpose is rather to guarantee the enjoyment of certain rights only within the territory of the host Member State.

By contrast, the Court stressed that, in the context of EU law, the protection of the freedom of establishment and the freedom to provide services, by means of the regime provided for by Directive 86/653 with respect to commercial agents, reflects the objective of establishing an internal market, conceived as an area without internal borders, by removing all obstacles to the establishment of such a market.

The Court concluded that the differences between the Treaties and the Association Agreement preclude the system of protection laid down by the Directive from being held to extend to commercial agents established in Turkey, in the context of that agreement.

Jean-Sylvestre Bergé (University of Lyon) has published an interesting analysis of the judgment in his blog Droit & Pluriel.   

Par un arrêt du 8 février 2017, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) a précisé qu’une publicité comparative est susceptible d’être trompeuse lorsque le consommateur n’est pas clairement informé dans la publicité de la différence de formats et de tailles des magasins comparés. 

en lire plus