Agrégateur de flux

There is just a month to go for the Private International Law: Embracing Diversity event taking place in Edinburgh, organized by the University in cooperation with several other institutions from the UK and abroad. The updated program of this one-day meeting of PIL experts can be downloaded here. Please remember the venue (St. Trinnean’s Room, St. Leonard’s Hall – University of Edinburgh, EH16 5AY), and also that registration is required at www.law.ed.ac.uk/events (attendance fee: £40.00 per attendee).

Nausicaa Anadyomène et Banque d'Escompte / BCE
Droit institutionnel
La BCE n’est pas tenue de réparer le préjudice prétendument subi en 2012 par les banques commerciales détenant des titres de créance grecs dans le cadre de la restructuration de la dette grecque

La giurisprudenza italiana sui regolamenti europei in materia civile e commerciale e di famiglia, edited by / a cura di Stefania Bariatti, Ilaria Viarengo, Francesca Clara Villata, Cedam, 2016, pp. 527, ISBN 9788813358686, EUR 55

Il volume che si licenzia rappresenta l’opera conclusiva delle attività svolte da un gruppo di ricerca dell’Università degli Studi di Milano nell’ambito del progetto internazionale di ricerca “Cross-border litigation in Europe: Private International Law – Legislative framework, national courts and the Court of Justice of the European Union” – EUPILLAR, finanziato dalla Direzione generale Giustizia e consumatori della Commissione europea, iniziato il 1° ottobre 2014 e conclusosi il 30 settembre 2016. Oggetto dell’indagine sono stati alcuni regolamenti dell’Unione europea in materia di diritto internazionale privato e processuale, adottati nel settore della cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile, e la relativa giurisprudenza italiana, anche sotto il profilo di un proficuo dialogo dei giudici nazionali con la Corte di giustizia dell’Unione europea. L’indagine è stata condotta in parallelo dai partner del consorzio di ricerca, vale a dire, accanto all’Università degli Studi di Milano, nelle sue due componenti del Dipartimento di Diritto pubblico italiano e sovranazionale e del Dipartimento di Studi internazionali, giuridici e storico-politici, l’Università di Aberdeen (Scozia), che ha coordinato il progetto, le Università di Anversa (Belgio), Breslavia (Polonia), Friburgo (Germania), Leeds (Inghilterra) e Madrid (Universidad Complutense, Spagna). 

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 18e chambre, 2e section, 14 décembre 2016

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) déclare irrecevable le recours de la société UBS AG demandant l’annulation d’un cautionnement, s’élevant à 1,1 milliard d’euros, exigé par les juges français à la suite de leur enquête. 

en lire plus

Il appartient au juge d’interpréter souverainement la loi étrangère applicable, sauf dénaturation.

en lire plus

Le procès de Téodoro Obiang a été reporté au 19 juin 2017 pour laisser le temps à ce dernier de préparer sa défense. Mais au juste, de quoi est il accusé ? Et pourquoi les tribunaux français sont-ils amenés à juger un ressortissant de la Guinée-Équatoriale exerçant des responsabilités gouvernementales dans son pays, qui plus est ?

en lire plus

Tribunal de grande instance de Dieppe, 15 décembre 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Angers, chambre de l'instruction, 1er juin 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Colmar, 2e chambre civile, section A, 27 mai 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 5-7, 16 juin 2016

My colleague Adriani Dori (MPI Luxembourg) kindly reminded me today: EU Regulation 655/2014 applies from 18 January 2017.

There is as yet no EU harmonisation on amino acids, in so far as they have a nutritional or physiological effect and are added to foods or used in the manufacture of foods. A range of EU foodlaws therefore do not apply to national action vis-a-vis amino acids, in particular Regulation 1925/2006 – the food supplements Regulation. In the absence of specific EU law rules regarding prohibition or restriction of the use of other substances or ingredients containing those ‘other substances’, relevant national rules may apply ‘without prejudice to the provisions of the Treaty’.

In C-282/15 Queisser Pharma v Germany, moreover there were no transboundary elements: Articles 34-36 TFEU therefore do not in principle apply.

No doubt food law experts may tell us whether these findings are in any way unusual, however my impression is that the Court of Justice in this judgment stretches the impact of the ‘general principles of EU food law’ as included in Regulation  178/2002. Indeed the Court refers in particular to Article 1(2)’s statement that the Regulation lays down the general principles governing food and feed in general, and food and feed safety in particular, at EU and national level (my emphasis). Article 7 of the Regulation is of particular relevance here. That Article gives a definition of the precautionary principle, and consequential constraints on how far Member States may go in banning foodstuffs, as noted in the absence of EU standards and even if there is no cross-border impact.

Article 7 Precautionary principle

1. In specific circumstances where, following an assessment of available information, the possibility of harmful effects on health is identified but scientific uncertainty persists, provisional risk management measures necessary to ensure the high level of health protection chosen in the Community may be adopted, pending further scientific information for a more comprehensive risk assessment.

2. Measures adopted on the basis of paragraph 1 shall be proportionate and no more restrictive of trade than is required to achieve the high level of health protection chosen in the Community, regard being had to technical and economic feasibility and other factors regarded as legitimate in the matter under consideration. The measures shall be reviewed within a reasonable period of time, depending on the nature of the risk to life or health identified and the type of scientific information needed to clarify the scientific uncertainty and to conduct a more comprehensive risk assessment.

Germany on this point is probably found wanting (‘probably’, because final judgment on the extent of German risk assessment is left to the national court) – reference is best made to the judgment for the Court’s reasoning. It is clear to me that the way in which the Regulation defines precaution, curtails the Member States considerably. Further ammunition against the often heard, and wrong, accusation that the EU is trigger happy to ban substances and processes in the face of uncertainty.

Geert.

 

En application de la Convention franco-marocaine du 5 octobre 1957, « le juge vérifie si la décision dont l’exequatur est demandé est, d’après la loi du pays où elle a été rendue, passée en force de chose jugée et susceptible d’exécution ».

en lire plus

It is my pleasure to give notice of a recently published monograph of my colleague Dr. Javier Maseda Rodríguez (Associate Professor of private international law at the University of Santiago de Compostela, Spain), entitled

La ley aplicable a la titularidad original de los derechos de propiedad intelectual sobre las obras creadas en el marco de una relación laboral (The law applicable to the initial ownership of intellectual property rights of works created in the context of an employment relationship).

This monograph aims to identify the applicable law to the initial ownership of intellectual property rights to works created in the context of an employment relationship. The topic is indeed a classic one for private international law scholars with an interest in intellectual property. Still, it remains a hot issue, as shown in a book that compiles with a comparative intent normative, practical and doctrinal positions on the subject, explaining at the same time the reception in Spanish law of regulations alien to the Spanish tradition – such as Art. 11 (2) English Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, Art. 7 Dutch IPL or the works made for hire from sect. 201.b, par. 17, American Copyright Act 1976.

The research undertaken by Dr. Maseda Rodríguez evinces the controversy raised by the ascription of the initial ownership of intellectual property rights to a specific work, in light of the different responses given by legal systems –and this, in spite of the rapprochement among systems thanks to rules like the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works of September 9, 1886-, both in general and with respect to works created in the context of an employment relationship. Hence the comparative law analysis, providing support for the different viewpoints as to the applicable law: on the one hand, the continental systems of droit d’auteur, which identify the employee as the author and therefore as original holder of economic and moral rights (art. 1, 5.1, 51 y 97.4 Spanish LPI). On the other, the copyright systems, which consider the entrepreneur/employer, who facilitates the creation by investing in the product, as author, and therefore as original holder of all rights, economic and moral (art. 11 (2) English Copyright, Designs and Patent Act 1988, the art. 7 Dutch IPL or works made for hire of the sect. 201.b, par. 17, American Copyright Act 1976).

The absence of any material notion of author facilitates to address the question of the original ownership of intellectual property rights from a pure conflict-of-law rules perspective. Dr. Maseda approaches the issue from two points of view -employment and intellectual property-, regulated by different applicable rules –the lex laboris and the law regulating intellectual property rights. The pros and cons of both solutions are discussed; so is their respective implementation, which is explained decoupling moral and economic intellectual property rights, as their different nature result in different problems.

Regarding the implementation of the lex laboris to the original ownership of economic intellectual property rights the following three issues are tackled with in the monograph: first, the reception of copyright rules into Spanish law; secondly, the problems generated by the availability of economic intellectual property rights by its original owner; thirdly, the restrictions to the lex laboris (protection of the salaried creator: limits to party autonomy, and the recourse to the lois de police or the international public policy regarding the original ownership of economic intellectual property rights).

Concerning the implementation of the lex loci protectionis to the original ownership of moral rights, the author examines the case of claims for the Spanish territory and for a foreign country. From this point of departure he addresses the reception of foreign norms regulating authorship and/or the initial ownership of moral intellectual property rights in favor of the employer; and the compatibility with the Spanish public policy of the waiver of moral rights in favor of the employer (for instance through by way of a clause in the employment contract).

Finally, the coexistence of both regulations –the lex laboris and the lex loci protectionis– is also addressed, with a special emphasis on the conciliation of the conflicting interests between employer and employee.

Dr. Javier Maseda Rodríguez’s monograph is the sixteenth volume within the series De conflictu legum, a compilation of monographs especially devoted to private international law with a specific focus on civil procedural international law, conflict of law rules and international commercial law.