Agrégateur de flux

In un decreto del 26 agosto 2015, il Giudice Tavolare del Tribunale di Trieste ha annoverato l’ingiunzione di pagamento europea di cui al regolamento n. 1896/2006, dichiarata esecutiva in conformità all’art. 18 del regolamento stesso, tra le possibili fonti del diritto all’ipoteca giudiziale ex art. 2820 del codice civile, ammettendo che sulla base di essa possa essere autorizzata l’iscrizione del relativo diritto nei registri del conservatore immobiliare.

Una tale conclusione verrebbe a discendere, nell’opinione del giudice disponente, dai principi posti alla base dello stesso regolamento n. 1896/2006, il quale – pur configurando, in termini espressi, il procedimento da esso istituito come un meccanismo supplementare e facoltativo rispetto a quelli previsti dalla legislazione nazionale per il recupero di crediti non contestati – mira, tuttavia, a garantire l’effettività della tutela del credito così realizzata.

Tale effettività, in particolare, andrebbe preservata, anche per via interpretativa, riconoscendo ai creditori che decidano di avvalersene la possibilità di rivendicare, sulla base dell’ingiunzione, i diritti e le facoltà che spetterebbero loro in base a un analogo titolo nazionale.

Una conclusione opposta, che negasse l’attitudine dell’ingiunzione europea a fungere da base per l’iscrizione di un’ipoteca giudiziale nei confronti del debitore ingiunto, si porrebbe del resto in contrasto, ad avviso del giudice triestino, con le indicazioni date dalla Corte di Giustizia nel caso Szyrocka, poiché finirebbe col dissuadere il creditore dall’avvalersi del procedimento europeo, diminuendone l’appetibilità rispetto al più favorevole procedimento nazionale esperibile in situazioni analoghe (segnatamente, il procedimento di ingiunzione di cui agli articoli 633 e seguenti del codice di procedura civile).

In definitiva, stando al provvedimento, è la necessità di assicurare l’effettivo esercizio dei diritti conferiti dal diritto dell’Unione che impone di riconoscere all’ingiunzione europea di pagamento non opposta – al pari del decreto ingiuntivo non opposto (cfr. l’art. 647 del codice di procedura civile e l’art. 2817 e seguenti del codice civile) – l’efficacia di titolo per l’iscrizione dell’ipoteca giudiziale.

Ana Fernández Pérez, Funciones de las cláusulas de excepción en el proceso de localización de la norma en conflicto, in Revista española de derecho internacional (REDI), 2015, pp. 83-109.

[Abstract] – An important aspect of flexibility is that, without abandoning the localization process, it counteracts the rigidity of the connections of the rule of conflict that may appoint, in certain circumstances, a legal system with weak links to the assumption and producing adverse situations. In national and international codification of private international law some texts have turned to so-called “exception clause” from which the judge has an institutionalized power to determine the applicable law, as long as the situation  provides unequivocally a very loose connection with another law designated by the rule of conflict laws. The exception clauses designed for specific situations have been proved to be useful and, therefore, have been welcomed as an important correction instrument and as the best mechanism for specialization due to the degree of heterogeneity. Its use helps to consolidate the necessary certainty and predictability of the rules of conflict and therefore the satisfaction of the proximity principle. Naturally, this loca-tion must be understood in a material sense character. The exception clause will deploy its usefulness if it acts as a technical localization inside the confrontational mechanism that seeks the right answer, given the physical objectives that seeks solution of the case.

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de Bobigny, 7 janvier 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 16e chambre B, 30 septembre 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, chambre de l'instruction, 28 septembre 2015

Lazar v Allianz, Case C-350/14, was held on 10 December last. It addressed the issue of ‘ricochet’ damage in the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations. Ricochet or ‘reflective’ or ‘indirect’ losses occur when someone suffers losses as a result of a tort directly causing damage to someone else.

The request has been made in a dispute between Mr Lazar, who resides in Romania, and the Italian insurance company Allianz SpA regarding compensation for material and non-material damage which Mr Lazar claims to have suffered in jure proprio by reason of the death of his daughter, a Romanian national who was resident in Italy, which occurred in Italy as a result of a road traffic accident caused by an unidentified vehicle. For Mr Lazar, it is more interesting for Italian law to be considered the lex causae.

The Opinion of Wahl AG neatly summarised the two opposing views: (at 40-41 of his Opinion):

According to the first view, (…) material and non-material damage suffered by the family members of a person who has died in another Member State does not necessarily constitute indirect consequences of the tort/delict for the purposes of Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation. It would follow in particular that, because it is based on an obligation that is distinct from the obligation as between the opposing party and the person who died in the accident, a claim for compensation in respect of material rights claimed by the close relatives of a person who has died as a result of a traffic accident which occurred in the State of the court seised must be assessed by reference to the law of the place in which the damage sustained by those relatives occurred, namely the place of their habitual residence, unless it can be demonstrated that, in accordance with Article 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation, it is clear from all the circumstances of the case that there are manifestly closer connections with another country.

According to the second view (…) the damage sustained, in their country of residence, by the close relatives of a person who has died in a road accident which occurred in the State of the court seised must be regarded as constituting indirect consequences of the damage suffered by the immediate victim of the accident. The term ‘country in which the damage occurs’ must be interpreted as referring to the place which caused the damage, which, in the main proceedings, is the place of the road accident.

He eventually opined in favour of the second view, taking inspiration ia from CJEU case-law on Article 7(2) of the Brussels I Recast (previously Article 5(3) Brussels I)- even though at 51 he cautioned against lifting interpretation from the jurisdictional Regulation for use in the applicable law Regulation. His main arguments were as follows:

(at 74) the interpretation whereby the general rule under which the expression ‘country in which the damage occurs’ in Article 4(1) of the Rome II Regulation extends to the place of the direct damage — in this case the place of the fatal collision — has the benefit of simplicity and objectivity where all the damage alleged actually originates from the same source.

(at 75) this is consistent with the foreseeability pursued by the drafting of the Rome II Regulation. In most cases, the person liable is able to anticipate the consequences in other countries of his conduct or of the conduct of persons for whom he is responsible. Similarly, the victim is generally informed of the legal context to which he was exposed or exposed his property. In other words, both the person liable and the victim were informed and took the necessary steps, in particular with regard to insurance, in connection with the applicable law in the country or countries in which damage might potentially occur.

(at 76) the general rule for determining the applicable law in the Rome II Regulation is characterised by neutrality. Taking the example of the material damage suffered by the survivors of a person who has died as a result of a traffic accident, it may be considered that the neutrality of the law would be jeopardised in so far as that damage is still located in the victim’s place of residence. (The AG notes that in other instances Rome II is not neutral: he refers in particular to Articles 6 (on acts of competition) and 7 (on environmental damage).

(at 77) such an interpretation is also consistent with the other idea underlying connecting factors in private international law, namely the idea of proximity, which is intended, as far as possible, to connect a situation to the law of the country with which it is most closely connected. Whilst the place of the accident is undeniably related to the other components of the liability, the domicile of the indirect victim is not necessarily so related. 

(at 79) the Rome II Regulation introduces corrective mechanisms which make it possible, in several respects, to avoid the apparent rigidity of the rule of the place in which the damage occurs.

Conclusion (at 83) ‘The term ‘place in which the damage occurs’ must, further to the case-law on the Brussels Convention and the Brussels I Regulation, be understood as meaning the place of the occurrence of the event, in this case the road accident, which directly produced its harmful effects upon the person who is the immediate victim of that event.’

The Court itself, much more succinctly, agrees.

A singular event, therefore, leads to one applicable law, even if its ricochet effect causes damage elsewhere. That such damage is actionable separately (for it may create multiple obligations in tort) or even iure proprio does not impact that analysis.

A word of caution, however: the judgment only holds for singular events. More complex events, especially of a continuing kind, are much more likely to create direct harmful effects in a multitude of persons, potentially therefore also leading to more loci damni. The ricochet effect therefore is highly likely to echo again at Kirchberg.

Geert.

 

On 25 and 26 February 2016 a conference titled From common rules to best practices in European Civil Procedure will be held in Rotterdam, jointly organised by the Erasmus University and the  Max Planck Institute for European, International and Regulatory Procedural Law of Luxembourg.

The conference will bring together experts in the field of civil procedure from the European Union and beyond. It seeks to facilitate in-depth discussion and sharing of knowledge, practical experiences, and solutions, with the aim of reinforcing mutual trust and contributing to the further development of European civil procedure.

The focus is on how to move beyond common rules and towards best practices that give body to mutual trust and judicial cooperation, which can in turn feed the further development of the European civil procedure framework from the bottom up.

For more information see here.

Tilly-Sabco / Commission
Agriculture
Le Tribunal juge que la Commission n’a pas commis d’erreur en fixant à zéro le montant des restitutions à l’exportation dans le secteur de la viande de volaille en juillet 2013

Horatia Muir Watt, Private International Law and Public Law, Edward Elgar Publishing, 2015, ISBN 9781782547792, pp. 2072, GBP 605.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – The conspicuous absence of private international law from the current global governance debate may be traced in part to its traditional ‘public law taboo’, fed by liberal understandings of statehood and its characteristic public/private divide, in the context of the modern schism between the public and private branches of international law. Alongside an original introduction, the materials assembled in this important collection are of immediate interest to both public and private international lawyers, and more broadly to all those interested in new forms of global governance and the theory of law beyond the state.

Ulteriori informazioni, compreso l’indice dell’opera, sono disponibili qui.

Tribunal correctionnel de Paris, 4 janvier 2016

R (Seiont, Gwyrfai and Llyfni Anglers’ Society) v Natural Resources Wales has a long history. That’s not meant to be a fairy tale opening: it actually has legal relevance.

Article 2(2) of the environmental liability Directive provides the following definition: “ ‘damage’ means a measurable adverse change in a natural resource or measurable impairment of a natural resource service which may occur directly or indirectly.” ‘Environmental damage’ is further defined in Article 2(1), providing a variety of layers which need ‘unpacking’ in the words of Hickinbottom J. He concludes, after lengthy and instructive analysis, that  “damage” as defined in article 2(2) of the EL Directive is restricted to a deterioration in the environmental situation, and does not in addition include the prevention of an existing, already damaged environmental state from achieving a level which is acceptable in environmental terms – or a deceleration in such achievement. Since “environmental damage” is a subset of “damage”; “environmental damage” necessarily has that same restriction.

The judgment is very considered and there is not much point in repeating it here: please refer to the text for a thorough read on the ELD, the water framework Directive, habitats and much more.

Geert.

 

Règlement UE n° 2015/848 du 20 mai 2015 relatif aux procédures d’insolvabilité, a cura di Cécile Lisanti e Laura Sautonie-Laguionie, Société de législation comparée, 2016, pp. 430, ISBN 9782365170550, Euro 430.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Lorsqu’une entreprise développe son activité sur le sol de plusieurs États membres de l’Union Européenne, et qu’elle fait l’objet d’une procédure d’insolvabilité, le droit applicable est défini par le Règlement (UE) n°2015/848 du 20 mai 2015, qui opère une refonte du Règlement (CE) n°1346/2000 du 29 mai 2000. L’intérêt pratique de ce texte est manifeste puisqu’il détermine quelle juridiction est compétente pour ouvrir la procédure, quelle sera la loi applicable et quelle portée aura la procédure dans les différents États intéressés. Le Règlement insolvabilité est aussi intéressant sur le plan de la construction européenne puisque, sans procéder à une harmonisation des règles matérielles en la matière, il met en place des solutions garantissant la sécurité juridique, favorisant la circulation des décisions de justice, et invitant à une coopération des organes de la procédure mais aussi des juridictions. Il est donc un outil original dont l’ouvrage propose une étude article par article, qui renseigne sur le sens des dispositions, l’état du contentieux et les enjeux de leur application. Destiné tant aux professionnels qu’aux enseignants-chercheurs et aux étudiants, il permet de connaître le droit européen des procédures d’insolvabilité. 

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

La Cour de Strasbourg a jugé que le gouvernement maltais, en refusant aux personnes en garde à vue l’assistance d’un avocat durant les interrogatoires jusqu’en 2010, a violé les dispositions de l’article 6 de la Convention.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Entreprise en difficulté

Entreprise en difficulté

Sono state rese note il 23 dicembre 2015 le conclusioni dell’Avvocato generale Juliane Kokott nella causa Granarolo, un procedimento pregiudiziale concernente l’interpretazione del regolamento n. 44/2001 sulla competenza giurisdizionale e il riconoscimento delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale (Bruxelles I).

Il quesito sottoposto alla Corte riguarda l’art. 5 del regolamento, corrispondente oggi all’art. 7 del regolamento n. 1215/2012 (Bruxelles I bis). Si tratta della norma che prevede una serie di competenze “speciali”, alternative al foro generale del domicilio del convenuto e fondate sull’esistenza di un nesso particolarmente stretto fra il giudice di un dato luogo e la lite di cui detto giudice è investito.

Il rinvio mira ad ottenere un chiarimento circa la sfera di applicazione delle regole attributive contemplate all’art. 5 n. 1 e n. 2 del regolamento, riguardanti, rispettivamente, la “materia contrattuale” e la “materia degli illeciti civili dolosi e colposi” (nel regolamento Bruxelles I bis, si tratta, rispettivamente, dell’art. 7 n. 1 e n. 2). Più specificamente, viene chiesto alla Corte di precisare se debba aversi riguardo all’una o all’altra disposizione quando si faccia questione della responsabilità affacciata nei riguardi di un imprenditore per aver interrotto in modo brusco, senza un adeguato preavviso, una relazione commerciale stabile, e ciò al di fuori dell’ipotesi in cui tale interruzione costituisca la reazione all’inadempimento degli obblighi dell’altra parte. Una siffatta responsabilità è prevista, in Francia, dall’art. L 442-6 del Code de commerce.

Secondo l’Avvocato generale, un’azione di questo genere, riferita all’interruzione di relazioni commerciali stabili “non inserite in un contratto quadro”, e in mancanza di un patto di esclusiva, deve considerarsi compresa nella materia degli illeciti civili dolosi o colposi e comporta dunque l’operatività dell’art. 5 n. 3, del regolamento n. 44/2001.

Per giungere a tale conclusione, l’Avvocato generale fa leva principalmente sulla sentenza Brogsitter. In essa, la Corte di giustizia ha affermato che, per delimitare la sfera applicativa del foro della materia contrattuale, distinguendolo da quello degli illeciti civili, è decisivo stabilire se “l’interpretazione [di un] contratto che vincola il convenuto al ricorrente appare indispensabile per stabilire … l’illiceità del comportamento … rimprovera[to] al secondo”. Una tale interpretazione, ha osservato la Corte in quel frangente, risulta indispensabile in materia di contratti qualora “le azioni intentate … nel procedimento principale abbiano per oggetto una domanda di risarcimento la cui causa può essere ragionevolmente considerata una violazione dei diritti e delle obbligazioni del contratto che vincola le parti …, circostanza che ne renderebbe indispensabile la presa in considerazione per decidere sul ricorso”.

Nel caso di specie, osserva l’Avvocato generale, il diritto al risarcimento invocato dall’attore si ricollega all’improvvisa interruzione di una relazione commerciale stabile nel cui contesto un’impresa italiana ha compiuto varie forniture di prodotti a un’impresa francese, in assenza, tuttavia, di un contratto quadro che disciplinasse nel complesso la relazione commerciale delle parti.

In tali circostanze, prosegue l’Avvocato generale, la questione decisiva, quella consistente nel sapere se l’interruzione della relazione commerciale in questione sia stata accompagnata, o meno, da un ragionevole termine di preavviso, “non dipende … dalla valutazione di accordi tra le parti”, ma si collega semmai ad “una norma di legge che, nell’interesse di ordinate relazioni commerciali, ne disapprova ogni improvvisa interruzione, prevedendo, in questi casi, diritti al risarcimento per l’ex partner commerciale”.

Nel caso in esame, si legge ancora nelle conclusioni, non si discute di violazioni contrattuali, “bensì del rifiuto dell’ex partner commerciale di stipulare contratti”. Si potrebbe parlare, in effetti, di importi “contrattuali” solamente “qualora la parte che interrompe la relazione commerciale eccepisca eventuali violazioni contrattuali pregresse da parte del creditore nell’ambito di detta relazione, per giustificare così l’interruzione di quest’ultima e sottrarsi al relativo obbligo di risarcimento”. Senonché, rimarca l’Avvocato generale, “un siffatto motivo di difesa – quand’anche sollevato mediante eccezione … – non modificherebbe la natura della pretesa risarcitoria e non la trasformerebbe in una pretesa contrattuale”.

La pretesa azionata in giudizio va dunque qualificata come extracontrattuale, in linea con quanto fatto dalla stessa Corte di giustizia nella sentenza Tacconi in relazione alla responsabilità connessa all’interruzione di trattative precontrattuali: nell’uno come nell’altro caso – stando all’Avvocato generale – mancano quegli “impegni liberamente assunti da una parte nei confronti di un’altra” che, sin dalla sentenza Handte, rappresentano, per il giudice dell’Unione, il proprium della materia contrattuale.