Agrégateur de flux

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme se prononce contre l’interdiction systématique faite aux détenus d’une prison lituanienne de pouvoir porter une barbe sur le fondement du droit au respect de la vie privée.

en lire plus

Le refus d’un État membre de reconnaître un nom peut être justifié dès lors qu’il est approprié et nécessaire pour garantir le respect du principe d’égalité en droit de tous les citoyens de cet État.

en lire plus

Union européenne

Conseil de prud'hommes de Lille, 9 juin 2016

Commission / Portugal
Droit institutionnel
Pour avoir tardé à mettre en œuvre la directive sur le traitement des eaux urbaines résiduaires, le Portugal est condamné à une somme forfaitaire de 3 millions d’euros et à une astreinte de 8 000 euros par jour de retard

Commission / Portugal
Droit institutionnel
Pour avoir tardé à mettre en œuvre la directive sur le traitement des eaux urbaines résiduaires, le Portugal est condamné à une somme forfaitaire de 3 millions d’euros et à une astreinte de 8 000 euros par jour de retard

La condamnation pour constitution abusive de partie civile ne constitue pas une ingérence à l’article 10 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, dès lors que la condamnation se fonde sur la mise en mouvement abusive de l’action publique et non sur des propos tenus. 

en lire plus

New Valmar
Libre circulation des personnes
L’obligation d’établir des factures transfrontalières exclusivement dans une langue spécifique, sous peine de nullité, enfreint le droit de l’Union

New Valmar
Libre circulation des personnes
L’obligation d’établir des factures transfrontalières exclusivement dans une langue spécifique, sous peine de nullité, enfreint le droit de l’Union

As previously announced and reminded on this blog, on 6t and 7 April 2017 the University of Bonn will host a conference on the topic Politics and Private International Law (?).

The conference aims to discuss the different aspects of the interaction between conflict of law rules and the reaching of substantive goals, highlighting as well its advantages and disadvantages.

The proposals for conference papers (of not more than 1.000 words in German language and without any reference to the authorship) should be submitted to nachwuchs-ipr(at)institut-familienrecht.de until 30 June 2016, 12 am CET.

Further information can be found here.

« La date à laquelle est effectuée la remise à parquet de la décision à signifier par la voie diplomatique ne constitue pas le point de départ du délai pour interjeter appel de cette décision. »

en lire plus

Le 6 juin 2016, le collège de la grande chambre de la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) a accepté le renvoi de l’affaire Barbulescu c/ Roumanie (CEDH 12 janv. 2016, n° 61496/08, D. 2016. 807, obs. P. Lokiec et J. Porta ; Dalloz IP/IT 2016. 211, obs. P.

en lire plus

As I had feared /as was to be expected, the CJEU did not follow Szpunar AG’s lead in formally letting go of Case 21/76 Bier‘s Erfolgort /Handlungsort distinction, even if it did accept the AG’s rejection in the case at issue, of the mere presence of a bank account triggering jurisdiction for tort under (now) Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast.

Kolassa upheld jurisdiction in favour of the courts for the place of domicile of the applicant by virtue of where the damage occurred, if that damage materialises directly in the applicant’s bank account held with a bank established within the area of jurisdiction of those courts. The case was distinguished however, for in that case there where ‘circumstances contributing to attributing jurisdiction to those courts.’ In general, the Court held, ‘purely financial damage which occurs directly in the applicant’s bank account cannot, in itself, be qualified as a ‘relevant connecting factor’‘ (at 38) . ‘ It is only where the other circumstances specific to the case also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to the courts for the place where a purely financial damage occurred, that such damage could, justifiably, entitle the applicant to bring the proceedings before the courts for that place.‘ (at 39).

The Court at 38 flags a rather interesting and relevant argument for dismissing pure presence of  a bank account as a determining connecting factor: a company such as Universal Music may have had the choice of several bank accounts from which to pay the settlement amount, so that the place where that account is situated does not necessarily constitute a reliable connecting factor. What the Court is essentially saying is that in such circumstance the applicant can manipulate jurisdiction and hence shop for a forum: which is not part of the jurisdictional rule for tort.

Crucially of course we are left having to ponder what exactly ‘other circumstances’ than location of bank account may imply.

Geert.

 

(Handbook of) European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Headings 2.2.11.2, 2.2.11.2.7

by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.

Universal Music, a record company established in the Netherlands, acquired the Czech company B&M in the course of 1998. The contracts providing for the sale and delivery of B&M’s shares were drawn up by a Czech law firm. Because of negligence by an associate of the Czech law firm the contracts provided a much higher sale price for B&M shares than intended by Universal Music. This led to a dispute between Universal Music and B&M’s shareholders which was brought before an arbitration board in the Czech Republic, following a settlement between the parties in 2005. Because of this settlement Universal Music allegedly suffered financial damage of some 2.5 million EUR. Subsequently Universal Music has brought proceedings against the Czech lawyers before the Dutch courts. The Dutch courts have requested the CJEU to answer the question, whether Article 5 (3) of Regulation No 44/2001 must be interpreted as meaning that the place where the harmful event occurred can be construed as being the place, in a Member State, where the damage occurred, if that damage consists exclusively of financial damage which is the direct result of an unlawful act committed in another Member State. However the only connecting factor to the Netherlands, besides Universal Music being established in that state, was that the bank account from which Universal Music paid the settlement amount was situated in Baarn (The Netherlands). Thus the CJEU now finds that such “purely financial damage which occurs directly in the applicant’s bank account can not, in itself, be qualified as a ‘relevant connecting factor’, pursuant to Article 5(3) of Regulation No 44/2001”. Obviously in order not to contradict its ruling in „Kolassa“ (C-375/13) the CJEU clarifies that only where “other circumstances specific to the case also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to the courts for the place where a purely financial damage occurred, that such damage could, justifiably, entitle the applicant to bring the proceedings before the courts for that place”.  Referring to „Kronhofer“ the CJEU further states that the place where the harmful event occurred “does not refer to the place where the applicant is domiciled and where his assets are concentrated by reason only of the fact that he has suffered financial damage there resulting from the loss of part of his assets which arose and was incurred in another Member State”. As a consequence the place where the loss of the claimant´s assets occurs and the place where his assets are concentrated only can be qualified as the place where the harmful event occurred, pursuant to Article 5 (3), if other circumstances specific to the case also contribute to attributing jurisdiction to the courts for these places.

The full judgment is available at: http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=180329&pageIndex=0&doclang=DE&mode=req&dir=&occ=first&part=1