Agrégateur de flux

Dan Jerker B. Svantesson, Private International Law and the Internet, 3a ed., Kluwer Law International, 2016, ISBN 9789041159564, pp. 728, 160 Euro

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The third edition of Private International Law and the Internet presents a detailed and insightful account of what is emerging as the most crucial and current issue in private international law: the interplay of private international law and the Internet. The author discusses how the controversial issues that stem from borderless Internet prove to be one of the greatest challenges for private international law and international legal cooperation as both are predicated on the existence of traditional borders that define jurisdictional boundaries. This book goes on to explain the following four fundamental questions: When should a lawsuit be entertained by the courts? Which state’s law should be applied?
When should a court that can entertain a lawsuit decline to do so? and Will a judgment rendered in one country be recognized and enforced in another? The book identifies and investigates twelve characteristics of Internet communication that are relevant to these questions and then proceeds with a detailed analysis of what is required of modern private international law rules.

Il sommario del volume può essere consultato qui.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The Brussels Court of Appeal has sided with Facebook  on 29 June. This post I am going to keep very, very simple: told you so. Geert.

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Paris, 21 juin 2016

Cour d'appel de Riom, chambre de l'instruction, 14 juin 2016

Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, chambre de l'instruction, 22 juin 2016

Est discriminatoire le refus d’un permis de séjour pour raison familiale à un concubin homosexuel au seul motif que ce permis serait réservé aux couples mariés.

en lire plus

The next Journal of Private International Law Conference will take place in Rio de Janeiro, Brazil from 3-5 August 2017. We are now issuing a call for papers on any aspect of private international law.  Abstracts of a maximum of 500 words should be sent to  jprivintlrioconference2017@gmail.com by 15 November 2016.  The previous conferences at Aberdeen, Birmingham, New York, Milan, Madrid and Cambridge have been extremely successful.  The conference is the leading opportunity for private international law academics of all levels of seniority from around the world to gather together to advance our subject.

Speakers will not have to pay a registration fee for the conference but will be expected to fund their own travel expenses and accommodation costs. In addition, speakers will be expected to submit the finalised version of their articles for consideration for publication in the Journal of Private International Law in the first instance.

Sono apparsi nella Gazzetta ufficiale dell’Unione europea dell’8 luglio 2016 il regolamento (UE) 2016/1103 del 24 giugno 2016 che attua la cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della competenza, della legge applicabile, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di regimi patrimoniali tra coniugi, e il regolamento (UE) 2016/1104 del 24 giugno 2016 che attua la cooperazione rafforzata nel settore della competenza, della legge applicabile, del riconoscimento e dell’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di effetti patrimoniali delle unioni registrate.

La disciplina racchiusa nei due strumenti si applicherà a decorrere dal 29 gennaio 2019 e interesserà, salvo eccezioni, solo i procedimenti avviati, gli atti pubblici formalmente redatti o registrati e le transazioni giudiziarie approvate o concluse in quella data o successivamente. L’applicabilità delle norme sui conflitti di leggi è peraltro circoscritta ai coniugi che hanno contratto matrimonio o che hanno designato la legge applicabile al loro regime patrimoniale successivamente al 29 gennaio 2019, ovvero ai partner che hanno registrato la loro unione o che hanno designato la legge applicabile agli effetti patrimoniali della loro unione successivamente a tale data.

Gli effetti del regolamento si produrranno comunque negli Stati membri che hanno manifestato l’intenzione di partecipare alla cooperazione rafforzata, vale a dire Belgio, Bulgaria, Repubblica ceca, Cipro, Croazia, Finlandia, Francia, Germania, Italia, Lussemburgo, Malta, Paesi Bassi, Austria, Portogallo, Slovenia,  e Spagna, Svezia.

The Belgian Council of State, chamber of legislation (in the title I call it a ‘parliamentary watchdog: for that is what it is. By issuing prior opinions on the legality of legislative initiative it guards against illegal Statute) has opined that a private members bill banning unstunned slaughter, does not pass the ECHR test.

A European Regulation (1099/2009) provides for an unclear, and conditional,  exemption for religious (regularly rather offendingly called ‘ritual’) slaughter. Practised in particular by the Jewish (Shechita; leading to ‘kosher’ meat) and Muslim (Zabihah; with halal meat) faith, a core aspect of the practice is that animals are not stunned prior to slaughter. The science on the effect of stunned or unstunned slaugther is  unequivocal, and most certainly neither stunned nor unstunned slaughter, when carried out incorrectly (well documented in the case of stunned slaughter) does not aid the welfare of the animal.

Religious slaughter falls squarely within the European Convention of Human Rights Article 9’s freedom of religious expression. Hence the Council of State summarily (its conciseness is rather attractive) reviews the ECtHR’s case-law and concludes that the proposed ban would be both unconstitutional and clearly against the provisions of the ECHR. On the EU Regulation front, I believe the EU rules are more problematic than the Opinion suggests (I have analysis on it forthcoming) however on the ECHR side of things, the Opinion could not be more correct. An outright ban on unstunned slaughter in the name of animal welfare or otherwise would offend freedom of religious expression to such a degree that it simply must not pass.

Geert.

La Cour de cassation, à propos de la vente de matériels de l’Allemagne vers la France, refuse d’appliquer la Convention de New York du 14 juin 1974 sur la prescription en matière de vente internationale de marchandises à la prescription de l’action en responsabilité de l’acheteur contre le vendeur, faute pour ces deux États d’avoir ratifié cette Convention. 

en lire plus