Agrégateur de flux

Tribunal d'instance de Montreuil, 19 octobre 2016

In a judgment of 25 July 2016 (No 15343), the First Chamber of the Italian Court of Cassation held that the application of the law of Pakistan, specifically, the application of the rules that allow marriage proceedings to be conducted over the telephone or by telematic means (subject to certain conditions, such as the presence of witnesses), is not incompatible with the Italian public policy.

Nella sentenza 25 luglio 2016 n. 15343, la Prima Sezione della Corte di cassazione ha escluso che produca effetti contrari all’ordine pubblico italiano la norma pakistana, resa applicabile in forza del richiamo di cui all’art. 28 della legge 31 maggio 1995 n. 218, che ammette — a certe condizioni, come la presenza di testimoni — che uno dei coniugi possa prestare il proprio consenso non già personalmente di fronte all’autorità officiante ma per via telefonica o telematica.

The EUFam’s Project’s Consortium is glad to announce that the first version of the EUFam’s case-law database, filled in the past months by all partners of the project, is now available for public consultation.

Currently, the database contains data concerning over 400 decisions applying the European Union Regulations on cross-border litigation in family matters, issued by the courts of Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, France, Germany, Greece, Italy, Slovakia, and Spain.

The consortium will keep the database up to date and publish new versions of the file in the upcoming months in the section ‘Public Database’ of the EUFam’s website, in order to keep it up-to-date with the new cases that all partners will classify until December 2017, date of the end of the project.

 

Website: www.eufams.unimi.it

Facebook page: www.facebook.com/eufams

 

On the project:

The Project ‘Planning the future of cross-border families: a path through coordination’ (EUFam’s – JUST/2014/JCOO/AG/CIVI/7729) aims at analysing is the practice of several Member States concerning the application of EU Regulations No 2201/2003, No 1259/2010, No 4/2009, and No 650/2012, as well as the 2007 Hague Maintenance Protocol, and the 2007 Hague Recovery Convention.

The purpose of the research activity is to identify the difficulties met by courts and practitioners in applying the rules laid down in the regulations, and to collect and share the solutions and best practices adopted by them in order to overcome such issues.

Partners of the Project are: the University of Milan (coordinator), the University of Heidelberg, the University of Osijek, the University of Valencia, the University of Verona, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, the Italian Family Lawyers Association (AIAF), the Spanish Family Lawyers Association (AEAFA), the Italian Judicial Academy (SSM), and the Croatian Judicial Academy.

The EUFam’s Project is co-funded by the Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers of the European Commission, within the programme ‘Projects to support judicial cooperation in civil or criminal matters’ (Justice Programme).

The e-mail contact for further information is: eufams@unimi.it

On 26 October 2016 the University of Macerata will host a conference on the Digital Single Market. The programme is available here.

Il 26 ottobre 2016 l’Università di Macerata ospiterà un convegno sul mercato unico digitale. Il programma è disponibile qui.

Massimo V. Benedettelli, Five Lay Commandments for the EU Private International Law of Companies, in Yearbook of Private International Law, 2015/2016, p. 209-251.

While praising European company law as a “cornerstone of the internal market”, the EU institutions have devoted limited attention to issues of competent jurisdiction, applicable law and recognition of judgments which necessarily arise when companies carry out their business on a cross-border basis. This is a paradox, especially if one considers that in this area the EU often follows a policy of “minimal harmonization” of the laws of the Member States and that this policy leads to the co-existence of a variety of different rules and institutions directly or indirectly impinging on the regulation of companies, thus to possible conflicts of jurisdictions and/or laws. The European Court of Justice’s “Centros doctrine” fills this gap only partially: this is due not only to the inherent limits of its case-law origin, but also to various hidden assumptions and corollaries on which it appears to be grounded and which still need to be unearthed. Hence, time has come for a better coordination of the legal systems of the Member States in the field of company law, possibly through the enactment of an ad hoc instrument. To be properly carried out, however, such coordination requires a preliminary clarification of what the EU private international law of companies really is and how it should be handled at the current stage of the European integration. This article tries to contribute to such clarification by proposing five main guidelines, in the form of “commandments” for the European legislator, courts and practitioners. It is submitted that, first, one should understand the different scope of the three legal disciplines (EU law, private international law and company law) which interact in this field so as to assess when and to what extent the lack of coordination of the Member States’ domestic laws may affect the achievement of the objectives pursued by the EU. As a second analytical step, the impact that the EU constitutional principles of subsidiarity and proportionality may have on the scope of the relevant regulatory powers of the EU and of the Member States should be determined. Third, the issue of “characterization” should be addressed so that the boundaries of company law vis-à-vis neighbouring disciplines (capital markets law, insolvency law, contract law, tort law) are fixed throughout the entire EU legal space in a uniform and consistent way. Fourth, the Member States’ legal systems should be coordinated on the basis of the “jurisdictional approach” method (which de facto inspires the ECJ in Centros and its progenies) by granting a role of prominence to the Member State under the laws of which a company has been incorporated. Fifth, any residual conflict which may still arise among different Member States in the regulation of a given company should be resolved, in principle, by respecting the will of the parties to the corporate contract and the rights “to incorporate” and “to re-incorporate” which they enjoy under EU law. In the author’s opinion, an EU private international law of companies developed on the basis of these guidelines not only would achieve a fair balance between the needs of the integration and the Member States’ sovereignty, but would also create a framework for a European “market of company law” where a “virtuous” forum and law shopping could be performed in a predictable and regulated way.

In its judgment of 18 October 2016 regarding the case of Nikiforidis (Case C‑135/15), the Court of Justice ruled as follows.

(1)      Article 28 of Regulation No 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) must be interpreted as meaning that a contractual employment relationship that came into being before 17 December 2009 (the date on which the Regulation became applicable) falls within the scope of the regulation only in so far as that relationship has undergone, as a result of mutual agreement of the contracting parties which has manifested itself on or after that date, a variation of such magnitude that a new employment contract must be regarded as having been concluded on or after that date, a matter which is for the referring court to determine.

(2)      Article 9(3) of Regulation No 593/2008 must be interpreted as precluding 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 from being applied, as legal rules, by the court of the forum. The Regulation, however, does not preclude the court from taking such other overriding mandatory provisions into account as matters of fact in so far as this is provided for by the national law that is applicable to the contract pursuant to the regulation. This interpretation is not affected by the principle of sincere cooperation laid down in Article 4(3) TEU. 

Regarding the opinion delivered by SG Szpunar in this case, see here.  

Nella sentenza del 18 ottobre 2016 relativa al caso Nikiforidis (causa C-135/15), la Corte ha affermato quanto segue.

(1)      L’art. 28 del regolamento n. 593/2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (Roma I) dev’essere interpretato nel senso che un rapporto contrattuale di lavoro sorto prima del 17 dicembre 2009 (la data di applicabilità del regolamento) rientra nell’ambito di applicazione di tale regolamento solo nei limiti in cui detto rapporto ha subito, per effetto di un consenso reciproco delle parti contraenti che si sia manifestato a decorrere da tale data, una modifica di ampiezza tale da dover ritenere che sia stato concluso un nuovo contratto di lavoro a decorrere dalla medesima data, circostanza che spetta al giudice del rinvio determinare.

(2)      L’art. 9, par. 3, del regolamento n. 593/2008 deve essere interpretato nel senso che esso esclude che norme di applicazione necessaria diverse da quelle dello Stato del foro, o dello Stato nel quale gli obblighi derivanti dal contratto devono essere o sono stati eseguiti, possano essere applicate, in quanto norme giuridiche, dal giudice del foro. Esso non osta, tuttavia, a che il giudice prenda in considerazione siffatte altre norme di applicazione necessaria in quanto elementi di fatto nei limiti in cui ciò è previsto dal diritto nazionale applicabile al contratto in forza delle disposizioni di tale regolamento. Detta interpretazione non è rimessa in discussione dal principio di leale cooperazione enunciato all’articolo 4, paragrafo 3, TUE.

Vedi qui una sintesi delle conclusioni presentate in questa causa dall’Avvocato Generale Szpunar.

Le for désigné par l’article 6, point 3, du règlement Bruxelles I est compétent pour connaître d’une demande reconventionnelle tendant au remboursement, au titre d’un enrichissement sans cause, d’une somme correspondant au montant convenu dans le cadre d’un règlement extrajudiciaire.

en lire plus

Une période d’attente de quarante ans pour que les détenus hongrois, condamnés à la réclusion à perpétuité, sans possibilité de libération conditionnelle, puissent espérer un réexamen de leur peine, est incompatible avec l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme (interdiction des traitements inhumains ou dégradants).

en lire plus

Intel Corporation / Commission
Concurrence
L’avocat général Wahl propose d’accueillir le pourvoi d’Intel dirigé contre l’amende de 1,06 milliard d’euros infligée pour abus de position dominante

Indemnisation des victimes d'infraction

On 29 September 2016, Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and Wolters Kluwer co-hosted a seminar in London to mark the launch of the special BREXIT issue of the Kluwer Journal of International Arbitration. The speakers comprised of the authors of the articles within the BREXIT issue, who discussed varied topics relating to Brexit and private international law. Leading the seminar were Professor Dr Maxi Scherer, special counsel at Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP and the journal’s general editor, and Dr Johannes Koepp, partner at Baker Botts LLP and the special issue editor.

The speakers, who were of both academic and professional acclaim, provided interesting insights and lively debate on the multifaceted impacts that Brexit could have on the UK’s legal landscape. Topics included Brexit’s effect on: London as a seat for international dispute resolution; recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments; UK competition litigation and arbitration; and intellectual property disputes.

This post, which has been kindly sent to me by Reyna Ge (BCL Candidate, University of Oxford) serves to provide an overview of the presentations and issues raised. A full recording of the seminar is available here, with a shortened version including the highlights of the event here.

London as a Seat of International Dispute Resolution in Europe

Michael McIlwrath, Global Chief Litigation Counsel of GE Oil & Gas, presented via videoconference “An Unamicable Separation: Brexit Consequences for London as a Premier Seat of International Dispute Resolution in Europe”. In determining the impact that Brexit might have on London as a seat for international commercial arbitration, he suggested that London would lose cases in the short- to medium- term, while long-term growth would be subject to other assumptions. However, he also noted that Brexit would most likely not impact the trend of increased growth in the appointment of UK arbitrators.

EU Law and Constitutional Law Questions

Dr Holger Hestermeyer, Shell Reader in International Dispute Resolution, King’s College London, presented “How Brexit Will Happen: A Brief Primer on EU Law and Constitutional Law Questions Raised by Brexit”. Dr Hestermeyer explained that Article 50 of the Treaty of the European Union required a Member State to make a decision to withdraw from the EU in accordance with that State’s constitutional law, with the conclusion that the referendum itself was not legally binding. It is controversial whether a binding decision ought to be made by the Government on the basis of royal prerogative (as argued by the UK Government) or on the basis of a Parliamentary decision. Dr Hestermeyer also explored the process of leaving the EU, which would comprise negotiations for a “divorce agreement” and “future agreement”. This raised questions concerning the conduct of negotiations, the need for ratification of such agreements by the EU Member States and the UK, and the potential involvement of the European Free Trade Association States (“EFTA States”).

Brexit and the Brussels Regime

Sara Masters QC and Belinda McRae, barristers practising at 20 Essex Street Chambers in London, presented “What Does Brexit Mean for the Brussels Regime?” They examined what would be the effect of Brexit on the two main instruments on the allocation of jurisdiction and on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, the Brussels I Regulation (Recast) (“Recast Regulation”) and the Lugano II Convention.

McRae explained the three academic possibilities that could arise if no agreement or decisions be made in this area, and concluded that a lack of action by the government concerning this framework would be very concerning for commercial parties.

Masters QC stated that the best outcome would be to negotiate a regime that is as close to the Recast Regulation as possible. The next best alternative would be to accede to the Lugano II Convention, even though this would mean that the innovations introduced by the Recast Regulation would not be present. Otherwise, the UK could accede to the Hague Choice of Court Convention, which could be a good short-term solution as it has the advantage of not being dependent on the reciprocity of the EU.

UK Competition Litigation and Arbitration

Paul Gilbert, Counsel at Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton LLP, presented “Impact of Brexit on UK Competition Litigation and Arbitration”. Gilbert commented that there were signs that the UK government was moving toward a “hard Brexit” in relation to competition law. This would mean that more cases would be looked at within the UK, instead of providing Brussels with the sole jurisdiction over cases such as cartels.

Gilbert noted that the effect on competition litigation, in the form of follow-on actions, would be more difficult to predict. Following Brexit, EU cases would no longer be binding. Even if the UK decides to apply UK competition law consistently with EU law, future EU Commission decisions may not make further reference to the position in the UK on competition matters and thus make alignment difficult. Additionally, it was unclear what information would be released to claimants, and a finding of infringement pursuant to EU law may not necessarily be a basis for bringing a damages claim in a UK court. The implementation of the Damages Directive in the EU would also impact competition law.

Intellectual Property Litigation and Arbitration

Annet van Hooft, Partner at Bird & Bird LLP, presented “Brexit and the Future of Intellectual Property Litigation and Arbitration”. She noted that Brexit has impacted the creation of the Unitary Patent Court (“UPC”). Whether the UK would ratify the UPC regime and the future of the subdivision of the UPC that was to be located in London are two examples of issues arising from Brexit. The UPC, therefore, would experience delays in implementation.

Regarding trademarks and designs, while UK trademarks and designs would be unaffected, there would be uncertainty concerning the future treatment of community trademarks and designs in the UK. Van Hooft noted further uncertainty concerning database rights, the enforcement of pan-EU relief for unitary rights, exhaustion and licenses.

Intra- and Extra-EU Bilateral Investment Treaties

Markus Burgstaller, Partner at Hogan Lovells International LLP, presented “Possible Ramifications of the UK’s EU Referendum on Intra- and Extra-EU BITs”. With regard to intra-EU BITs, Burgstaller argued that such BITs would likely be found to be incompatible with EU law, and noted that the European Commission had called for the termination of the intra-EU BITs as early as in 2006. However, many States had not terminated these BITs, as was the case with the UK. Currently, the ECJ is set to rule upon the compatibility of intra-EU BITs in the case of the Netherlands-Slovakia BIT. Upon UK withdrawing from the EU, the intra-EU BITs would lose their intra-EU character.

Comments and discussion

Following presentation by the speakers, lively debate was entertained concerning the topics. The speakers and participants highlighted the importance of seeking agreement on matters such as BITs and the replacement for the Brussels Regime with the EU, for the purpose of promoting legal certainty. The potential for growth in the use of international arbitration, for the purposes of capitalising on the recognition and enforcement framework provided by the New York Convention, was also raised.

 

By Implementing Regulation (EU) 2016/1823 of 10 October 2016, the European Commission has established the forms referred to in Regulation (EU) No 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure, an ex parte procedure that applies in cross-border cases and is intended to allow creditors to preserve funds in bank accounts under uniform conditions in all EU Member States (with the exception of the UK and Denmark). The procedure will become available on 18 January 2017.

The forms established by the Commission include, inter alia, the form to be used by the creditor to apply for a EAPO, the forms to be used by the court for the issue and the revocation of a EAPO, and the form to be used by the debtor to apply for a remedy against a EAPO. Each form comes with an explanatory text providing practical guidelines.

The Commission is now expected to make publicly available the information that the Member States, pursuant to Article 50 of Regulation No 655/2014, were required to provide before 18 July 2016 as regards the organisation of the EAPO procedure in their legal systems (such as the courts designated as competent to issue a EAPO and the authorities charged with the enforcement of EAPOs).

By Implementing Regulation 2016/1823 of 10 October 2016, the European Commission has established the forms referred to in Regulation No 655/2014 of 15 May 2014 on the European Account Preservation Order (EAPO) procedure, which is set to become available on 18 January 2017. The forms include, inter alia, the form to be used by the creditor to apply for a EAPO, the forms to be used by the court for the issue and the revocation of a EAPO, and the form to be used by the debtor to apply for a remedy against a EAPO. Each form comes with an explanatory text providing practical guidelines. The Commission is now expected to make publicly available the information that the Member States, pursuant to Article 50 of Regulation No 655/2014, were required to provide before 18 July 2016 as regards the organisation of the EAPO procedure in their legal systems (such as the courts designated as competent to issue a EAPO and the authorities charged with the enforcement of EAPOs).

Con il regolamento di esecuzione 2016/1823 del 19 ottobre 2016, la Commissione europea ha adottato i moduli standard previsti dal regolamento n. 655/2014 del 15 maggio 2015 che istituisce una procedura per l’ordinanza europea di sequestro conservativo su conti bancari, esperibile a partire dal 18 gennaio 2017. Fra i moduli così elaborati rientrano quello di cui deve servirsi il creditore per domandare il rilascio di un’ordinanza, quello che deve adoperare il giudice competente per disporre o revocare l’ordinanza e quello che deve utilizzare il debitore per ricorrere contro l’ordinanza. Ogni modulo è corredato da una nota esplicativa contenente delle istruzioni pratiche. Ci si attende ora che la Commissione renda pubbliche le informazioni che gli Stati membri erano tenuti a fornirle entro il 18 luglio 2016 circa l’attuazione del regolamento n. 655/2014 nei rispettivi ordinamento (come l’indicazione delle autorità competenti alla concessione dell’ordinanza o quelle investite della sua esecuzione).

Règimes matrimoniaux

Etat civil - Mariage