Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca, Javier Carrascosa González, Derecho Internacional Privado, 16a ed., Editorial Comares, 2016, vol. I, ISBN: 9788490454060, pp. 992, 39,50 euro, e vol. II, ISBN: 9788490454121, pp. 1512, 42 euro.
[Dal sito dell’editore] – La décimosexta edición de este «Derecho internacional privado, volumen I» persigue ofrecer al lector un material de estudio del Derecho internacional privado convenientemente actualizado, sistemático y comprensible. Esta nueva edición se presenta con un doble objetivo. Por una parte, servir como texto para el estudio, en el ámbito universitario, de un DIPr. enteramente orientado a la práctica, y por otra parte, operar como instrumento de ayuda en la aplicación del Derecho internacional privado por los profesionales del Derecho.
I sommari dei volumi I e II possono essere consultati, rispettivamente, qui e qui.
Maggiori informazioni sono reperibili a questi indirizzi: volume I e volume II.
Others have reported in some detail, and I am happy to refer, on Arlewin v Sweden at the ECtHR – the second Strasbourg conflicts ruling I report on in more or less one week. Epra have a short and sweet review, based mostly on the Court’s press release but useful nevertheless: they for instance suggest that Strasbourg have extended e-Date Advertising’s centre of interests rule for infringement of personality rights via the internet, to transmission by satellite. Dirk Voorhoof takes the media regulation angle. Dr Takis has the most extensive review over at Profs Peers and Barnard’s EU law analysis.
The case is a good illustration of an important port of entry for the ECHR into EU conflicts law in commercial litigation at least (I am not talking here of family law): Article 6’s right to fair trial. (See here for more extensive review of the Convention’s impact on European private international law). Strasbourg and Luxemburg are playing combination football here: the ECtHR approving of the CJEU’s application of the Brussels I Regulation in the case of libel and defamation. Especially with the EC’s recent shift of focus to the plaintiff’s position rather than the defendant’s , nothing guarantees of course that in the future EU law at this point might not be at odds with human rights law.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed, 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2.4 .
In cooperation with the Centre de droit privé fondamental of the University of Strasbourg and the Centre d’études sur l’efficacité des systèmes juridiques continentaux of the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne, the Société de législation comparée organises an international conference entitled:
The application of foreign law under constitutional and treaty-based review
(Le droit étranger à l’épreuve des contrôles de constitutionnalité et de conventionnalité)
Scholars and practitioners in the fields of private international law from different backgrounds will meet in Paris to identify new models of control in the application of foreign law within Western legal systems and compare them with a view to understanding the place of the Otherness today in Europe and in Americas.
Date: 23 September 2016
Venue: Cour de Cassation, Grand’Chambre, 5, Quai de l’Horloge, 75001 – Paris.
Conference Directors:
Gustavo Cerqueira, Senior Lecturer at the University os Reims (France)
Nicolas Nord, Senior Lecturer at the University of Strasbourg, Vice-Dean of the Faculty of Law (France)
With the participation of :
Bertrand Louvel, First-President of the French Cour de cassation
Dominique Hascher, Chairman of the Société de législation comparée
Jean Massot, Honorary Section’s President at the French Conseil d’Etat
Danièle Alexandre, Emeritus Professor at the University of Strasbourg
Paul Lagarde, Emeritus Professor at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto, Councillor at the Cour de cassation in extraordinary service
Guillaume Drago, Professor of the University of Panthéon-Assas Paris II
Prolegomena :
Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, Professor at the University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Julien Boudon, Professor at the University of Reims, Dean of the Faculty of Law
French Perspectives :
Alice Meier-Bourdeau, Attorney at the French Conseil d’État and Cour de cassation
Hugues Fulchiron, Professor at the University of Jean Moulin Lyon 3
Pascal de Vareilles-Sommières, Professor at the University of Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne
Comparative Perspectives :
Serena Forlati, Associate Professor at the University of Ferrara
Fernanda Munschy, Attorney at the Bar of Strasbourg
Gustavo Cerqueira, Senior Lecturer at the University of Reims Champagne-Ardenne
Alejandro Garro, Associate Professor at the University of Columbia
Patrick Kinsch, Professor at the University of Luxembourg
Gustavo Monaco, Professor at the University of São Paulo
Didier Opertti-Bádan, Former Ministry of Foreign Affaires of Uruguay
See whole program here.
No participation fee.
Registration and further information:
Gordon Choisel / gordon.choisel@legiscompare.com
Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux - Prescription civile
Vente - Vente aux enchères publiques
Santé publique
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Montpellier, 3e chambre correctionnelle, 11 janvier 2016
Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 4, chambre 11, 9 juin 2016
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 3, 5e chambre, 12 mai 2016
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, 9e chambre correctionnelle, 18 janvier 2016
On 17 June 2016, the University of Milan will host a conference on The 2030 Agenda and the SDGs: Challenges of Implementation in a Global Perspective.
Speakers include Jean-Louis De Brouwer (EU Commission), Mariarosa Cutillo (UNFPA) and Thomas Schoenbaum (UW School of Law).
Nerina Boschiero (Univ. Milan) will introduce the discussion, while Tullio Treves (Univ. Milan) will draw the conclusions.
The programme of the event is available here.
The Estonian Riigikohus has requested, on 7 April 2016, a preliminary ruling from the CJEU on a case concerning violations of a legal person‘s rights committed on the internet: Bolagsupplysningen OÜ, Ingrid Ilsjan v. Svensk Handel AB, Case C-194/16). The Estonian court has asked the following questions:
1. Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a person who alleges that his rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning him on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can bring an action for rectification of the incorrect information and removal of the harmful comments before the courts of any Member State in which the information on the internet is or was accessible, in respect of the harm sustained in that Member State?
2. Is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that a legal person which alleges that its rights have been infringed by the publication of incorrect information concerning it on the internet and by the failure to remove comments relating to that information can, in respect of the entire harm that it has sustained, bring proceedings for rectification of the information, for an injunction for removal of the comments and for damages for the pecuniary loss caused by publication of the incorrect information on the internet before the courts of the State in which that legal person has its centre of interests?
3. If the second question is answered in the affirmative: is Article 7(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters to be interpreted as meaning that:
— it is to be assumed that a legal person has its centre of interests in the Member State in which it has its seat, and accordingly that the place where the harmful event occurred is in that Member State, or
— in ascertaining a legal person’s centre of interests, and accordingly the place where the harmful event occurred, regard must be had to all of the circumstances, such as its seat and fixed place of business, the location of its customers and the way and means in which its transactions are concluded?
Many thanks to Dr. Christina Mariottini (HCCH/ILA) and Meeli Kaur for the tip-off!
L’article 34, point 1, du règlement (CE) n° 44/2011, lu à la lumière de l’article 47 de la Charte des droits fondamentaux de l’Union européenne, doit être interprété en ce sens que la reconnaissance et l’exécution d’une ordonnance rendue par une juridiction d’un État membre, qui a été prononcée sans qu’un tiers dont les droits sont susceptibles d’être affectés par cette ordonnance ait été entendu ne sauraient être considérées comme étant manifestement contraires à l’ordre public de l’État membre requis et au droit à un procès équitable, dans la mesure où il lui est possible de faire valoir ses droits devant cette juridiction.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer