Agrégateur de flux

Sécurité sociale

Etat civil - Délivrance
copie acte de naissance - Responsabilité de l'Etat

Succession

Régimes matrimoniaux

In Brogsitter, the CJEU held that the fact that one contracting party brings a civil liability claim against the other is not sufficient to consider that the claim concerns ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast. That is the case only where the conduct complained of may be considered a breach of contract, which may be established by taking into account the purpose of the contract, which will in principle be the case only where the interpretation of the contract which links the defendant to the applicant is indispensable to establish the lawful or, on the contrary, unlawful nature of the conduct complained of against the former by the latter. 

At the end of December, Kokott AG Opined in C-196/15 Granarolo (even now, early April, the English version was not yet available) effectively applying Brogsitter to the case at hand: an action for damages for the abrupt termination of an established business relationship for the supply of goods over several years to a retailer without a framework contract, nor an exclusivity agreement. Ms Kokott (at 17) points out that unlike Brogsitter, there is no forceful link with the contractual arrangements between parties which would be the foundation for jurisdiction on the basis of contractual (non) performance (which there would have been had there been a framework relation between the parties). Rather, the soure for a claim between the parties is a statutory provision (it is not specifically identified: however presumable it relates to unfair commercial practices) that existing business relations cannot be abruptly halted without due cause.

Article 7(2) therefore should determine jurisdiction (over and above Article 4).

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2, Heading 2.2.11.2.9

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg:

Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg, is looking to hire a highly skilled and motivated individual to work as a part-time (50%) research assistant beginning June 2016 or sooner. Applications should be submitted no later than April 15, 2016.

The position will entail close collaboration on a number of new and ongoing projects, focusing primarily on research on financial regulation.
The duties include reviewing English articles, editing English texts and the support in research and teaching, as well as teaching your own classes in English (2 hours per week), preferably in the areas of private law business/financial law.

This position is expected to last two years. The work location is Halle, Germany, a city close to Berlin, Germany.

Education:

a university degree, preferably in law (JD)
preferably, knowledge of financial law / securities regulation

Competencies:

knowledge of English (native speaker or equivalent language skills)
experience with reviewing and editing legal texts
interest in business law
ability to work in a team as well as independently

Hours/week: 20
Pay Frequency: Monthly
Payment: around 1.700 Euro (approx. 1.200 Euro net) per month
Possibility to obtain a doctoral degree (if faculty’s requirements are met)

Required Job Seeker Documents: Resume, Cover Letter, complete transcripts.
The cover letter should include: A brief description of your career/study goals. A description of your experience with reviewing/editing legal texts. A brief description of any prior research assistance experience, or any other experience with legal research (e.g., thesis).

The University is committed to a policy of equal opportunity. Candidates with disabilities will be preferred in cases where they have the same qualifications as others.

If you are interested in this position, please send your application with the reference no. “Reg.-Nr. 3-1109/16-H” by April 15, 2016, preferably, via email to sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

or to:
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Juristische und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Juristischer Bereich, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Wirtschaftsrecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universitätsplatz 3-5, 06099 Halle (Saale).

For more information (in German) see http://www.verwaltung.uni-halle.de/dezern3/Ausschr/16_308.pdf.
For further enquiries, please contact Professor Dr. Kumpan: sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

As explained in a previous post from a few years back, if the Justices of the United States Supreme Court are considering whether to grant a petition for certiorari and review a decision from the Courts of Appeals, and they think the case raises issues on which the views of the federal government might be relevant—but the government is not a party—they will order a CVSG brief. “CVSG” means “Call for the Views of the Solicitor General.” In the past two months, the Court ordered CVSG briefs in two new cases concerning matters of private international law, sovereign immunity and international arbitration.

If the issues are interesting to the Justices of the Supreme Court, and are about to be addressed by the U.S. Executive branch, then they should, ipso facto, be interesting to the practicing bar as well. The fact that each of these cases involve claims being made against foreign sovereigns makes them even more interesting for international dispute resolution lawyers steeped in the crossroads of litigation, commercial and investment arbitration. Below is a brief review of these two cases and the interesting issues being raised.

The first case is Belize Social Development Ltd. v. Government of Belize. It involves the relatively uncommon juxtaposition of arbitration award enforcement and the doctrine of forum non conveniens. In that case, a private company had a contractual dispute with the government of Belize, and obtained an arbitration award of $38 million. It then sought to confirm the award in the United States. Belize defended on numerous grounds, including by arguing that the arbitration exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act did not apply because the contract was entered without proper legal authority in Belize, and by asserting that the New York Convention does not mandate recognition and enforcement where, as here, the dispute was not purely a “commercial” one, but rather promised favorable tax treatments. These defenses were dismissed by the D.C. Circuit; Ted Folkman has discussed that decision on Letters Blogatory.

The other unsuccessful defense raised by the debtor is now the subject of a petition for certiorari before the Supreme Court. The basic question is whether a party may dismiss a petition to recognize and enforce an arbitration award under the doctrine of forum non conveniens. The District Circuit held that a foreign forum is per se inadequate—and thus ineligible as a forum conveniens—because the focus of a recognition and enforcement action (viz. U.S.-based assets) cannot be reached by a foreign court. The D.C. Circuit affirmed this holding without any explication. This holding plainly splits from the Second Circuit, which has affirmed the forum non conveniens dismissal of recognition and enforcement actions when the alternative forum has some assets of the debtor, and thus offers the possibility of a remedy. This case is complicated by the fact that the Belize Supreme Court has issued an injunction against enforcement proceedings, and the Caribbean Court of Justice has held that the Award convenes public policy.

The decision below and the parties’ briefs before the Court can be found here.

The second case is Helmerich & Payne Int’l Drilling Co. et al v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela. This case concerns the a lawsuit by a U.S. company regarding breaches of contract by PdVSA and the expropriation of its assets in Venezuela. The claims were brought under both the expropriation and commercial activity exceptions to the FSIA; the District Court permitted the claims to proceed under the latter but not the former. The D.C. Circuit flipped those conclusions, allowing the expropriation but not the contract claims to proceed, and remanded the case. Both sides have filed crossing petitions for a writ of certiorari, presenting the following questions.

(1) Whether, under the third clause of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976, a breach-of-contract action is “based … upon” any act necessary to establish an element of the claim, including acts of contract formation or performance, or solely those acts that breached the contract;

(2) whether, under Republic of Argentina v. Weltover, a breaching party’s failure to make contractually required payments in the United States causes a “direct effect” in the United States triggering the commercial activity exception where the parties’ expectations and course of dealing have established the United States as the place of payment, or only where payment in the United States is unconditionally required by contract.

(3) Whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that a foreign state has taken property “in violation of international law,” the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act recognizes a discrimination exception to the domestic-takings rule, which holds that a foreign sovereign’s taking of the property of its own national is not a violation of international law;

(4) whether, for purposes of determining if a plaintiff has pleaded that “rights in property taken in violation of international law are in issue,” the FSIA allows a shareholder to claim property rights in the assets of a still-existing corporation; and

(5) whether the pleading standard for alleging that a case falls within the FSIA’s expropriation exception is more demanding than the standard for pleading jurisdiction under the federal-question statute, which allows a jurisdictional dismissal only if the federal claim is wholly insubstantial and frivolous.

The decision below and the parties briefs before the Court can be found here and here.

What the Solicitor General says about these issues and whether the Court takes the cases will not be known until the next Term, which begins in October.

Action publique

The following announcement has been kindly provided by Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg:

Professor Dr. Christoph Kumpan, University of Halle-Wittenberg, is looking to hire a highly skilled and motivated individual to work as a part-time (50%) research assistant beginning May 2016. Applications should be submitted no later than April 15, 2016.

The position will entail close collaboration on a number of new and ongoing projects, focusing especially on research on private law, international private law and business law.
The duties include the support in research and teaching in private law and private international law, as well as teaching your own classes (2 hours per week, in English or German), in particular in the areas of private law and/or private international law.

This position is expected to last three years. The work location is Halle, Germany, a city close to Berlin, Germany.

Education:

a university law degree (e.g., JD)

Competencies:

knowledge of English required, preferably also Spanish or French
knowledge of German of advantage
knowledge of private international law
ability to work in a team as well as independently

Hours/week: 20
Pay Frequency: Monthly
Payment: around 1.700 Euro (approx. 1.200 Euro net) per month
Possibility to obtain a doctoral degree (if faculty’s requirements are met)

Required job seeker documents: resume, cover letter, complete transcripts.
The cover letter should include: A brief description of your career/study goals. A brief description of any prior research assistance experience, or any other experience with legal research (e.g., thesis).

The University is committed to a policy of equal opportunity. Candidates with disabilities will be preferred in cases where they have the same qualifications as others.

If you are interested in this position, please send an application with the reference no. “Reg.-Nr. 3-1107/16-H” by April 15, 2016, preferably, via email to sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

or to:
Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Juristische und Wirtschaftswissenschaftliche Fakultät, Juristischer Bereich, Lehrstuhl für Bürgerliches Recht, Wirtschaftsrecht, Internationales Privatrecht und Rechtsvergleichung, Universitätsplatz 3-5, 06099 Halle (Saale).

For more information (in German) see http://www.verwaltung.uni-halle.de/dezern3/Ausschr/16_310.pdf.
For further enquiries, please contact Professor Dr. Kumpan: sekretariat.kumpan@jura.uni-halle.de

Un État membre est tenu de modifier sa législation lorsqu’une décision de la Commission européenne relative à une aide d’État illicite n’a pas été contestée devant les juridictions de l’Union européenne.

en lire plus

Editors Andrea Bjorklund, John Gaffney, Fabien Gélinas and Herfried Wöss have prepared a new TDM special, which undertakes a broad-ranging study of CETA as an indicator of the evolution of EU trade and investment policy and of the kinds of tensions and innovations that can be expected to arise as a new generation of twenty-first century trade and investment agreements emerges. The special starts off with an introduction by Professor Pieter Jan Kuijper; The Honourable L. Yves Fortier and Judge Stephen Schwebel.

You can view the table of contents of the TDM CETA special here

As many will know, in September 2015 the University of Cambridge hosted the Journal of Private International Law Conference (see here).  Video of the four plenary sessions has now been uploaded to YouTube.  The videos can be accessed through these links: first plenary, second plenary, third plenary, fourth plenary.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 3 février 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 5e chambre des appels correctionnels, 9 juin 2015

RPC and Sarah Shaul it seems, like me, are hoovering up database backlog – once again thank you to their excellent blog for alerting me to Banque Cantonale de Genève v Polevent. Other than the direct impact for the interpretation of Rome II‘s Article 10, and its relation with Article 4’s general rule, an important lesson from the case to me seems to be, yet again, the relevance of the articulation of claims, for the determination of jurisdiction.

Facs are as follows (at 2 ff). Claimant (“BCGE”) is a bank in Geneva. On 24 March 2104 a man calling himself Mr. Dumas telephoned BCGE and asked to speak to Yvan Nicolet of the accounting department. He was not in the office and so the call was taken by Jacqueline Konrad-Bertherin. Mr. Dumas asked her to send a confidential message to what he said was the private mail address of Eric Bourgeaux, the deputy CEO of BCGE. She did so and received a reply from someone claiming to be Mr. Bourgeaux instructing her to pay Euro 6,870,058 from BCGE to the Natwest Bank in London in favour of Polevent Limited. She did so. She believed she had been instructed to do so by Mr. Bourgeaux; but she had not been. The fraud was discovered and repayment was requested later that day.

Shortly before the fraud Natwest had been advised of a freezing order against Polevent in favour of an Italian company Enoi SpA (“Enoi”). The funds were therefore frozen in Polevent’s account with Natwest. BCGE has claimed damages from Polevent for deceit. BCGE accepts that that claim is governed by the law of Geneva. It has also advanced a claim against Polevent in restitution on the basis that the sum was paid by mistake. It claims that since Polevent must have realised that the sum was paid by mistake the conscience of Polevent was affected such that a constructive trust arises thereby providing BCGE with a proprietary claim in respect of the frozen funds. BCGE says that this proprietary claim is governed by English law.

Enoi is another creditor of Polevent. Enoi maintains that BCGE’s claim for restitution, in common with the claim is in deceit, is governed by the law of Geneva which does not recognise a proprietary claim. The resulting dispute is therefore between two creditors of Polevent. That company is in liquidation and has taken no part in this dispute.

The only preliminary issue which the High Court was asked to adjudicate on is worth repeating in full:

“On the basis of the facts as pleaded in the Amended Particulars of Claim and on the basis that the claim set out at paragraph 13 of the Amended particulars of Claim is governed by the law of Geneva, are the claims set out at paragraph 15 of the Amended particulars of Claim governed by English law or by the law of Geneva ? ”

One can appreciate why two different claims were formulated here.

For the claim in damages for deceit, BCGE accept Geneva law applies. The claim for restitution on the basis of unjust enrichment, however, is covered in its view by Article 10(3) Rome II: the law of the place in which the unjust enrichment took place, this being England, hence allowing for the existence of a constructive trust and priority in the pecking order following Polevent’s insolvency.

Enoi argue that the claim in restitution, like the claim in damages, is covered by the law of Geneva: at 9:

The submission of counsel for Enoi is that the law governing the claim in restitution is the law of Geneva by reason of Article 4(1) of Rome II. The claim arises out of the tort/delict of fraud and so the governing law is that of the place in which the damage occurred, namely, Geneva. Alternatively, the governing law is the law of Geneva pursuant to Article 10(1) on the grounds that the unjust enrichment concerns a relationship arising out of a tort/delict such that the governing law is that which governs that relationship, namely, the law of Geneva. In the further alternative the governing law is the law of Geneva pursuant to Article 10(4) on the grounds that the obligation arising out of the unjust enrichment is manifestly more closely connected with Geneva.

Both parties of course reverse engineer their governing law arguments: being aware of the attraction of one State’s laws over the other, counsel brief is to convince the court that the matter is characterised so that it leads to the warranted applicable law.

Enoi suggest that BCGE in reality have one claim only: one in fraud, a tort, it argues, from which the claim in unjust enrichment follows in a dependent fashion. Teare J disagrees (at 13). A claim in restitution need not be fault-based. It is a separate claim, to which Article 10’s regime applies (in the end leading to a finding of English law).

The judgment is in fact quite short. Its crucial implication to me would seem to be that BCGE has won the day by formulating two separate heads of action. Teare J acknowledges that his view may be an ‘unduly English law’ view, in other words, that he read the formulation of two claims at face value, as being two separate claims, because English law recognises non-fault based unjust enrichment. Regardless of the fact that other States, including European States, do so too, the obvious question is whether the EU’s qualification would be the same. The concept of unjust enrichment, like the concept of tort, necessarily needs to be an ‘autonomous’ one. Yet without much guidance in the preparatory works of Rome II on this concept, who can blame national law for filling in the blanks?

Geert.

(Handbook EU Private International Law, 2nd ed 2016, Chapter 4, Heading 4.7).

La Commission européenne a présenté, le 2 mars 2016, une proposition de décision autorisant une coopération renforcée dans le domaine de la compétence, du droit applicable et de la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions en matière de régimes patrimoniaux.

en lire plus

Thomas Bauermann, Der Anknüpfungsgegenstand im europäischen Internationalen Lauterkeitsrecht, Mohr Siebeck, 2015, ISBN 9783161539084, pp. 332, Euro 69.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – For the first time, Article 6 of the Rome II Regulation contains uniform European provisions on the private international law of unfair competition. This poses particular problems since there are huge differences in EU member states’ understanding of unfair competition law. Against this background, Thomas Bauermann examines the autonomous European concept of unfair competition and its characteristics.

Maggiori informazioni disponibili a questo indirizzo.

Il 14 e il 15 aprile 2016 si terrà il decimo seminario internazionale di diritto internazionale privato della Universidad Complutense di Madrid.

Si parlerà degli sviluppi del diritto internazionale privato spagnolo, delle recenti codificazioni nazionali del diritto internazionale privato e del diritto internazionale privato dell’Unione europea.

Interverranno, fra gli altri, Miguel Virgós Soriano (Univ. Autónoma de Madrid), Bertrand Ancel (Univ. Paris II-Assas), Alegría Borrás (Univ. Barcellona), Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute for Comparative and International Private Law), Christian Heinze (Univ. Leibniz, Hannover), Elena D’Alessandro (Univ. Torino), Roberto Baratta (Univ. Macerata) e Thalia Kruger (Univ. Antwerpen).

Il programma completo ed ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

Steadman Jean, Sprague Steven, Common Law Contract Law. A Practical Guide for the Civil Law Lawyer, Wolters Kluwer, 2015, pp. 896, ISBN 9788821751547, Euro 81.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Il testo costituisce una guida pratica alla disciplina dei contratti nell’ambito del sistema common law e si rivolge a tutti gli operatori del settore legale che, per loro origine e formazione, fanno riferimento al sistema del diritto civile e si occupano di operazioni, transazioni e contratti regolati dal diritto inglese o americano qualunque sia l’oggetto del contratto o la nazionalità delle parti. Vengono analizzati gli istituti fondamentali del sistema common law in Inghilterra, Galles e Stati Uniti d’America, evidenziandone i tratti comuni e fornendo una dettagliata spiegazione delle principali differenze esistenti tra i due sistemi giuridici. Numerosi esempi consentono al lettore di meglio comprendere come la prassi contrattualistica trovi reale applicazione nella quotidiana pratica legale. Ogni capitolo è corredato da specifiche note esplicative. Sono presenti un dettagliato glossario e una checklist delle principali tipologie contrattuali.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.

Le Royaume-Uni a violé les dispositions de la Convention relatives au droit à un procès équitable en ne permettant pas à une personne d’être assistée d’un avocat devant le juge qui l’a placé en détention.

en lire plus