Agrégateur de flux

Officiers publics ou ministériels ; Avoué

Genentech
Concurrence
Le bénéficiaire d’une licence de brevet doit payer la redevance convenue même s’il ne contrefait pas la technologie brevetée

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
L’exploitant d’une place de marché physique peut se voir contraint de faire cesser les infractions commises par les marchands en matière de marque

« La révision au fond est interdite au juge de l’exequatur ».

en lire plus

Bien que les recours exercés aient été effectifs, si les autorités françaises décidaient de mettre à exécution la décision de renvoi de la requérante menacée de mauvais traitements par sa famille en Guinée, il y aurait violation de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. 

en lire plus

Filiation

Engagement solennel devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne de nouveaux membres de la Cour des comptes européenne

For the facts of the case, and the reasoning of the AG in C-559/14 Meroni, I refer to my earlier posting. At the end of May (I am indeed still hoovering up the queue) the Court held very much alongside Kokott AG’s Opinion, I shall therefore not repeat its reasoning here. The CJEU does insist that if third parties rights are directly affected with the intensity as in the case at issue, that third person must be entitled to assert his rights before the court of origin (which English courts provide for), lest one runs the risk of the injunction being refused recognition under ordre public. As I had feared, the Court does not address the AG’s concern whether Mareva orders actually constitute a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of the Regulation.

Post Brexit, this considerable attraction of English courts in interlocutory proceedings might become a lot less real. (Like many of us, I am working on a short review of Brexit consequences for European private international law).

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 2, 2.2.16.1.1, 2.2.16.1.4

Où se situe le dommage lorsque le préjudice consiste exclusivement en une perte financière qui se matérialise directement sur le compte bancaire du demandeur et qui résulte directement d’un acte illicite commis dans un autre État membre ?

en lire plus

Dr. Chris Thomale, University of Heidelberg, has kindly provided us with the following thoughts on the possible consequences of Brexit for European private international law.

Hitherto, academic debate is only starting to appreciate the full ambit and impact a Brexit would have on the European legal landscape. Notably, two important aspects have been neglected, despite their crucial importance in upcoming negotiations about withdrawal arrangements between the EU and the UK under Art. 50 section 2 TEU: First, the vital British interest to leave in force the fundamental freedom of establishment. Second, a possible revival of regulatory competition of corporate laws among remaining Member States, once UK Limited Companies and Limited Liability Partnerships were to lose their EU or EEA status.

As Hess and Requejo-Isidro are correct in pointing out, Brexit will directly hit the UK judicial market. Brussels Ibis and its ancillary instruments will cease to apply. It remains yet to be seen if and to what extent new bilateral or multilateral agreements with Member States will make up for this suspension of EU free movement of judgments. This includes an accession to the Lugano Convention, which in itself is due to be reformed. In the meantime, negotiations will have to be based on a default position, according to which not only EU secondary law on jurisdiction and enforcement but notably mutual trust with regard to its application by UK courts will be suspended. The latter aspect cannot be emphasized enough: British insolvency proceedings in particular have been displaying tendencies to find a Centre of Main Interest of companies and entire global corporate groups inside the UK, often based on hardly understandable factual assertions and the most laconic reasonings given by UK courts (see, e.g. the Nortel case).

The mentioned expansionist aspect of the UK judicial market neatly ties in with a similar regulatory export of corporate forms. Under the aegis of Art. 49 seqq. TFEU and Art. 31 seqq. of the EEA Agreement, UK companies profit from being recognised throughout the EEA in their original British legal form of establishment, regardless of their actual place of management. This privilege has been incentivizing a common form of legal arbitrage: Investors establish a Ltd or LLP in the UK, while doing business anywhere else inside the EEA, thereby being able to circumvent mandatory rules applying at their state of business such as laws on co-determination, minimum capital, or mandatory insurance requirements. Such setups will not be available anymore once the UK were to leave the EEA. Putting it bluntly, from the moment UK effectively leaves the EU and the EEA, British companies operating e.g. in France or Germany will be subject to the corporate laws of their administrative seat. For these countries follow the ‘real seat’ theory, i.e. a conflict of company laws rule that designates the substantive law of the administrative seat as the applicable company law. UK companies not having to show any registration as, say, a Société à responsabilité limitée at their real seat, by default will immediately be treated as partnerships, entailing, inter alia, unlimited shareholder liability. In order to avoid this, UK companies operating inside the EU will be well advised to reincorporate, i.e. convert into a EU legal form, which better serves their economic interests.

However, will the UK simply let them go? Once Brexit becomes effective, the Directive 2005/56/EC on cross-border mergers will not apply anymore; neither will rulings rendered by the CJEU in Cartesio or Vale. Restrictions may be put into place, similar to those displayed by British authorities in Daily Mail, when corporate mobility required consent by UK Treasury. This may induce a corporate exodus from the UK while its EU membership is still active. Still, leaving UK company forms behind represents only one side of the deal. A second uncertainty rests with the question, exactly which new legal forms UK companies operating abroad will choose instead. Will they go for an Irish Private Company Limited by Shares, a Dutch Besloten vennootschap met beperkte aansprakelijkheid or a German Gesellschaft mit beschränkter Haftung? We could witness a revival of regulatory competition within the EU. However, even before that, Member States’ interests in the Art. 50 section 2 TEU withdrawal negotiations, regarding the question of preserving or abolishing freedom of establishment between the UK and the EU, will be influenced by their individual prospects and ambitions in such regulatory competition. At this point, there is no telling, who will win the race nor whether it will lead to the top of legal reform or to the bottom of deregulation. Be this as it may, exciting days have found us – not only for game theorists.

Future Enterprises / EUIPO - McDonald's International Property (MACCOFFEE)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Selon le Tribunal de l’UE, la renommée des marques de McDonald’s permet de faire échec à l’enregistrement, pour les produits alimentaires ou les boissons, de marques combinant le préfixe « Mac » ou « Mc » avec le nom d’un produit alimentaire ou d’une boisson

È in programma per i giorni 30 settembre e 1° ottobre 2016 a San Ginesio (MC) la sesta edizione dell’Incontro dei dottorandi di ricerca di diritto internazionale.

L’evento, promosso dalla Società Italiana di Diritto Internazionale e di diritto dell’Unione europea in collaborazione con il Centro Internazionale Studi Gentiliani, offre ai dottorandi di ricerca in diritto internazionale, diritto internazionale privato e diritto dell’Unione europea iscritti al secondo anno la possibilità di presentare i risultati parziali delle proprie indagini e di promuovere il dibattito sui temi affrontati.

I dottorandi interessati possono inviare la propria candidatura compilando questo modulo ed inviandolo all’indirizzo mail info@sidi-isil.it entro il 20 luglio 2016.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

Le droit de l’Union s’oppose à ce que la réglementation linguistique d’un État membre oblige, sous peine de nullité absolue, l’établissement des factures transfrontalières dans une langue spécifique.

en lire plus

Par un arrêt du 21 juin 2016, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme conclut à l’absence de violation de l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme quant à la condamnation pour diffamation aggravée d’un salarié, au regard des allégations de détournement de fonds publics dénoncées sur le fondement d’une rumeur non vérifiée, caractérisant l’absence de bonne foi.

en lire plus

Rendu au regard de la législation espagnole, l’arrêt de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne du 9 juin 2016, qui a fait l’objet d’un communiqué de presse, s’oppose à un système qui ne garantit pas que le coût de la compensation équitable destinée aux auteurs en cas de copie privée de leurs oeuvres ne soit pas finalement supporté par les utilisateurs de ces copies.

en lire plus

La Cour de Strasbourg a considéré qu’en jugeant irrecevable l’appel formé par le nouvel avocat d’un justiciable qui n’avait pas été désigné conformément aux dispositions du code de procédure pénale, elle l’a privé d’un examen au fond de son recours. La France est condamnée pour violation de l’article 6 § 1 de la Convention qui garantit le droit à un procès équitable.

en lire plus