Agrégateur de flux

Assurance maritime

— This is the amended version of a post published on 14 June 2016. 

On 17 June 2016 the University Milano-Bicocca will host a conference on Divorce and parental responsibility under the Brussels II bis Regulation.

The participation to the colloquium is reserved to judges and attorneys selected by the Scuola Superiore della Magistratura and by the Associazione Italiana degli Avvocati per la famiglia e per i minori (AIAF).

Presentations will be given by academics from Italy, Croatia, Spain and Lithuania on issues such as the habitual residence and the hearing of the child, prorogation of jurisdiction and transfer of proceedings.

Speakers include Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona), Carola Ricci (Univ. Pavia) and Costanza Honorati (Univ. Milano Bicocca).

Further information may be found in the flyer of the initiative, available here.

Scade il 15 luglio 2016 il termine per iscriversi all’edizione 2016 di EULoS, una summer school sui temi del diritto del mare rivolta a laureati e dottorandi, organizzata dalle Università di Genova e Brema, dalla Hochschule Bremerhaven e dall’Institut für Seevölkerrecht und Internationales Meeresumweltrecht di Brema.

I corsi si terranno a Brema, fra il 22 agosto e il 2 settembre 2016.

Come la passata edizione, anche le lezioni di quest’anno toccheranno, fra gli altri, argomenti di interesse internazionalprivatistico.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Commission / Royaume-Uni
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
Le Royaume-Uni peut exiger que les bénéficiaires des allocations familiales et du crédit d’impôt pour enfant disposent d’un droit de séjour dans cet État

Commission / Royaume-Uni
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
Le Royaume-Uni peut exiger que les bénéficiaires des allocations familiales et du crédit d’impôt pour enfant disposent d’un droit de séjour dans cet État

Commission / Royaume-Uni
Sécurité sociale des travailleurs migrants
Le Royaume-Uni peut exiger que les bénéficiaires des allocations familiales et du crédit d’impôt pour enfant disposent d’un droit de séjour dans cet État

On 17 June 2016 the University Milano-Bicocca will host a conference on Divorce and parental responsibility under the Brussels II bis Regulation.

Presentations will be given by academics from Croatia, Spain and Lithuania on issues such as the habitual residence and the hearing of the child, prorogation of jurisdiction and transfer of proceedings.

Further information may be found in the flyer of the initiative, available here.

En application du règlement n° 4/2009 du 18 décembre 2008 en matière d’obligations alimentaires, il appartient au juge de l’État membre saisi de vérifier sa propre compétence avant de prononcer sa décision, sans que cette compétence puisse être contrôlée par la suite par un juge d’un autre État membre auquel est demandée la reconnaissance ou l’exécution de cette décision.

en lire plus

Les États signataires demeurent libres de n’ouvrir le mariage qu’aux couples hétérosexuels.

en lire plus

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Valenciennes, 8 juin 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Metz, chambre sociale, section 3, sécurité sociale, 15 décembre 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Colmar, chambre sociale, section SB, 10 décembre 2015

According to a document of 3 June 2016 (9770/16), the Council of the European Union is expected to confirm a general approach on the Commission’s proposals for two regulations on the property regimes of international couples.

The regulations are meant to implement enhanced cooperation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, and on the property consequences of registered partnerships.

The general approach refers to the texts of the regulations as result, respectively, from document 8115/16 and document 8118/16 of the Council, both dated 30 May 2016.

As noticed in an earlier post, eighteen Member States have expressed the intention to take part in the enhanced cooperation.

The adoption of the regulations will take place once the European Parliament has given its opinion in accordance with Article 81(3) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

In Case C-185/15 Kostanjevec, Kokott AG (not available in English at the time of writing) advised on a number of issues in relation to a counterclaim under Article 6(3) Brussels I (now 8(3) of the Recast). At the core of the dispute lies a leasing contract and the consumer counterclaiming for restitution per unjust enrichment, of the sums she had transferred to counterparty. The counterclaim follows the annulment of the contract between the two, even though Marjan Kostanjevec had initially been ordered to pay.

The first relates to the temporal scope not of the Recast Brussels I Regulation viz Brussels I, but rather simply of Regulation 44/2001, in particular with respect to a Member State (Slovenia) which joined the EU on 1 May 2004. The Brussels Convention had never applied to Slovenia. The proceedings between parties  go back to 1995, prompting the EC among others to suggest that per Article 66 of the Regulation (This Regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted…after the entry into force thereof) it simply does not apply. Kokott AG however suggests first of all that the new claim in restitution, followed the use of a separate means of redress under Slovenian law, instituted after the initial claim by the leasing company had been wrapped up in its entirety. Moreover, other language versions refer not to ‘proceedings’ but rather to a claim (defined in C-341/93 Danvaern Production as claims by defendants which seek the pronouncement of a separate judgment or decree. It does not apply to the situation where a defendant raises, as a pure defence, a claim which he allegedly has against the plaintiff (at 18). 

Regulation 44/2001 applies therefore, in the view of the AG. I would agree that it should: this is particularly relevant where parties have a long and complex history of litigation. (Similarities here may exist with Nikiforidis, which is in my blog pile). Applying Danvaern Production however for the interpretation of Article 66 I think may be problematic. The raison d’être of Article 6(3) is to help avoid conflicting decisions in cases that are closely related. Even if, per Danvaern, they seek a separate pronouncement, they do essentially relate to reciprocal commitments which are part of the same bundle of facts. (See also Kokott AG herself, in para 44 of her Opinion with reference to the Jenard Report and to Léger AG in Danvaern). It feels a little inconsistent to call upon arguments developed viz inseparable claims (under Art.6(3): Danvaern) to support a thesis of separability (viz the application ratione temporis: they are separate claims even if they have a common history in fact and in contractual liaison).

With reference to C-297/14 Hobohm, the AG subsequently also advises that the counterclaim is covered by the Regulation’s consumer contracts title as having a ‘close link’ with the consumer contract, and, for the sake of completeness, and with reference to Profit SIM, that claims for restitution are covered by (now) Article 7(1) ‘s forum contractus even if they are grounded in the contract at issue not actually having existed.

I am curious how the Court will approach the temporal application issue.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International law, 2nd ed. 2016, chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1.a, Heading 2.2.21.3, Heading 2.1.1

 

 

La loi étrangère du lieu de situation de l’immeuble est applicable pour déterminer la propriété de ce bien.

en lire plus

Under the State Immunity Act, foreign states are generally immune from being sued in Canada.  This includes being sued on a foreign judgment.  However, in 2012 Canada enacted legislation to give victims of terrorism the ability to sue a foreign state that sponsored the terrorism.  It also made it easier for foreign judgments against such a state to be enforced in Canada.

In Tracy v The Iranian Ministry of Information and Security, 2016 ONSC 3759 (released June 9, 2016; likely to be posted in the week of June 13, 2016, in CanLII) the Ontario Superior Court of Justice had to consider these legislative reforms and how they applied to a series of American judgments rendered against Iran in favour of American victims of terrorist acts which Iran was found to have sponsored.  The court held that Iran was not immune from the enforcement proceedings and that accordingly the American judgments were enforceable against certain assets of Iran in Ontario.

The decision is reasonably detailed.  It involves interpretation of the State Immunity Act and the Justice for Victims of Terrorism Act.  It also considers issues relating to the limitation period and the enforcement of punitive damages awards (in this case, in the hundreds of millions of dollars).  Not all of the analysis resonates as convincing and there is considerable scope for a possible appeal.  For example, Iran’s argument that the loss or damage suffered by the victim had to have been, on the language of s 4(1) of the JVTA, suffered after January 1, 1985, did not prevent the enforcement of American decisions in respect of acts of terror which happened before that date because, the court held, the victims continued to suffer harm on an ongoing basis.  This seems vulnerable to challenge.  In addition, the court’s reasoning as to why the enormous punitive damages awards were not contrary to public policy is extremely brief.

However, on any appeal, Iran does have a significant procedural problem to overcome.  It did not defend the enforcement actions when they were initially brought in Ontario.  All of the immunity arguments were canvassed by the court as part of Iran’s motion to have the resulting default judgments set aside, on the issue of whether Iran might have a viable defence on the merits.  But at no point did Iran offer any explanation for the initial failure to defend.  While not conclusive, this weighs against setting the judgments aside even if Iran can show merit to its position on immunity.

The timing of the court’s decision against Iran could pose challenges for the current Canadian government, which is currently working to re-engage with Iran after the previous government cut ties in 2012 (see news story here).  In addition, a Montreal-based professor has recently been jailed in Iran and this has caused considerable concern in Canada (see news story here).