Agrégateur de flux

La CEDH a jugé que la consultation, par la justice portugaise, des comptes bancaires d’une avocate dans le cadre d’une procédure pénale pour fraude fiscale, violait les dispositions de l’article 8 de la Convention sur les droit au respect de la vie privée et au secret des correspondances.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Although it is hard to believe given his prolific writing and his remarkable fitness, American-German conflicts giant Professor Dr. Dr. h.c. mult. Peter Hay has actually celebrated his eightieth birthday on 17 September this year in Berlin. On this occasion, he has been honoured by a publication of Selected Essays on Comparative Law and Conflict of Laws, edited by Hans-Eric Rasmussen-Bonne and Manana Khachidze. For further information, click here. This volume is a collection of articles, case notes and book reviews authored by Professor Hay, both in English and in German. The contributions cover the whole range of his academic interests, mainly private international law, comparative law and international civil procedure. Taken together, they provide a fascinating view of the development of private international law and comparative law in recent decades, from the U.S. conflicts revolution in the 1960’s to the Europeanization of conflict of laws since the Treaty of Amsterdam. This book is a testimony to a truly impressive lifetime achievement, and it is to be hoped that many more contributions will be added in the future. Ad multos annos!

Samuel Fulli-Lemaire, Affaire PIP : quelques réflexions sur les aspects de droit international privé, in Revue Internationale de Droit Économique, 2015, pp. 99-122.

[Abstract] – Plusieurs voies s’offrent aux porteuses d’implants mammaires fabriqués par la société PIP pour l’indemnisation de leurs préjudices. La présente étude aborde certaines des implications, au regard du droit international privé, des actions en responsabilité délictuelle qui peuvent être intentées par les victimes contre le fabricant ou ses dirigeants sociaux, contre son assureur, et enfin contre l’organisme notifié, c’est-à-dire l’entité chargée de conduire la procédure d’évaluation de conformité d’un produit de santé aux exigences européennes. Dans chaque hypothèse, les aspects relatifs à la compétence internationale et à la loi applicable seront évoqués. Il ressort de cette analyse que de nombreuses stratégies contentieuses peuvent être envisagées, et si cette diversité peut sembler servir l’objectif assurément louable d’une meilleure indemnisation des victimes, ou au moins de certaines d’entre elles, elle doit aussi conduire à nuancer la vision du marché intérieur comme un ensemble cohérent. Certaines de ces difficultés pourraient être atténuées, sinon résolues, par la généralisation de mécanismes d’actions de groupe, mais l’articulation de ces derniers et des règles de droit international privé soulèverait d’autres complications.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Douai, 29 mai 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 11 mars 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Douai, 20 novembre 2014

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles, 19 octobre 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, Chambre de l'instruction, 7 février 2007

Confession time: when teaching the general conflicts course I tend to simply say about Article 71 of the Brussels I Regulation (unchanged in the Recast): ‘it’s complicated’. I have also briefly flagged the Article in my posting on Nickel and Goeldner. I suppose I should not be quite so shy in addressing the relationship even in an introductory conflicts class for, essentially, it is not that complicated at least form a hierarchical point of view. Article 71 mirrors Article 351 TFEU which states that any rights or obligations arising prior to the TFEU shall not be affected by it unless the agreements are not compatible with the TFEU. At stake therefore is a review by the courts whether international agreements between the Member States prior to the creation of the EU, are compatible with the TFEU.

In BAT Denmark v Kazemier and BAT Switserland v Essers, the United Kingdom Supreme Court had to carry out this exercise vis-a-vis the 1956 CMR Convention –   the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road. As Steven Baker notes, Lord Mance kicks off his judgment with the rather delightfully accurate ‘Cigarettes attract smokers, smugglers and thieves’. Tobacco manufactuters are also of course active litigators hence providing us with repeated opportunity to review case-law on a wide variety of contractual and other matters.

In the two appeals, one container load was allegedly hi-jacked in Belgium en route between Switzerland and The Netherlands in September 2011, while another allegedly lost 756 of its original 1386 cartons while parked overnight contrary to express instructions near Copenhagen en route between Hungary and Vallensbaek, Denmark.

The consignors (two of BAT’s corporate vehicles) are claiming against English main contractors who undertook responsibility for the carriage and against sub-contractors in whose hands the cigarettes were when the alleged losses occurred. The carriage was subject to the Convention on the Contract for the International Carriage of Goods by Road 1956 (“CMR”), given the force of law in the United Kingdom by the Carriage of Goods by Road Act 1965.

English law and English jurisdiction are said to offer the advantage that such duty and/or taxes are recoverable in a CMR claim against carriers, which is not the case in some other jurisdictions (at 4).

Citing (and reading in a particular way) CJEU precedent, in particular  Nipponkoa Insurance Co (Europe) Ltd v Inter-Zuid Transport BV (DTC Surhuisterveen BV intervening), C-452/12, the Supreme Court held (at 57) that CMR represents a balanced jurisdictional régime adopted across a wide-range of some 55 states, only half of which are Union member states. It did not regard its tailored balance as impinging on any of the principles of Union law which the CJEU would have it check against.

CMR applies therefore and under relevant English application, neither of the defendants can be sued in England.

Geert.

Il regolamento europeo sulle successioni. Commentario al Reg. UE 650/2012 applicabile dal 17 agosto 2015, a cura di Andrea Bonomi e Patrick Wautelet, Giuffrè, 2015, pp. XXXIV – 800, ISBN: 9788814201172, Euro 85.

L’indice dell’opera – che ha per autori Andrea Bonomi, Raffaella Di Iorio, Cristina Mariottini, Fabio Padovini, Paolo Pasqualis, Ilaria Pretelli e Maria Margherita Salvadori – è consultabile qui. Maggiori informazioni disponibili a questo indirizzo.

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) considère que le droit de l’Union ne s’oppose pas à l’exclusion d’un soumissionnaire dans l’attribution d’une procédure de passation d’un marché public, faute de s’être engagé à payer un salaire minimal imposé à son personnel.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Avec le règlement n° 1259/2010 du 20 décembre 2010, dit « Rome III », et, depuis le 21 juin 2012, les époux peuvent choisir la loi applicable à leur divorce.

À ce jour, le règlement lie seize pays : l’Allemagne, l’Autriche, la Belgique, la Bulgarie, l’Espagne, la France, la Grèce, l’Italie, la Lettonie, la Lituanie, le Luxembourg, la Hongrie, Malte, le Portugal, la Roumanie et la Slovénie.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Divorce (Procédure) Divorce (Cas)

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Grenoble, 2e chambre, 5 mai 2015

At first sight, it may seem a bit nerdy to report on Dyson, Case T-544/13. Yet (pun alert) once the dust settled on the judgment, the case in my view reveals quite a lot on how the CJEU sees the role of the EC as a regulator involved in all three steps of risk analysis: risk identification; risk management; and risk communication.

Arguably, misleading information often does more damage than a lack of information. It is on this basis that well-known Dyson, producer ia of bagless hoovers (or vacuum cleaners), challenged a delegated EC Regulation which establishes, in its own wording, ‘labelling and the provision of supplementary product information for electric mains-operated vacuum cleaners, including hybrid vacuum cleaners’. The purpose of the Regulation and of its mother Directive on energy labelling, evidently is to encourage consumers to purchase hoovers using less energy.

The contested regulation requires tests conducted with an empty dust bag. That, Dyson essentially argues, is like testing a Ferrari and a 2 CV on fuel consumption, with both cars in stationary condition (my comparison, not theirs). It will, in Dyson’s plea, lead to: (i) reporting of inaccurate information; (ii) ‘during use’ information not being integrated into the energy performance data; (iii) less incentive for manufacturers to invest with a view to improving the energy efficiency of vacuum cleaners; and (iv) labelling which does not serve to attain the objective of reducing energy consumption and, on the contrary, leads to an increase in energy consumption.

The Court held (at 47) that the Commission cannot be criticised for having failed to require tests conducted with a dust-loaded receptacle if, under its broad discretion, it decided that such tests were not yet reliable, accurate and reproducible. Even though the Court in various parts of the judgment acknowledges the inadequacy of the resulting product comparison, it cannot be held that the Commission made a manifest error of assessment by favouring a test conducted with an empty receptacle over a test conducted with a dust-loaded receptacle (at 53).

The judgment entertains many arguments brought forward however they essentially all revolve around the seemingly unavailable nature of appropriate, peer reviewable testing methods. The Court dismisses them all as (pun alert) hot air and effectively requires Dyson to offer the peer reviewable, repeatable alternative.

With respect, I believe the judgment is fundamentally mistaken. It was obviously not considered to be of a very crucial nature (chamber of three). Yet despite its very focussed nature, it reveals a lot about what the EU expects of its Institutions. In this case, misinformation is essentially considered preferable to no information. Surely (pun alert) that sucks.

The case was before the General Court hence appeal with the CJEU is not impossible.

Geert.

 

Si les personnes publiques ont droit à un certain respect de leur vie privée, une naissance ne relève pas seulement de la sphère privée, spécialement celle d’un enfant hors mariage dans une monarchie.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Vie privée

en lire plus

En l’absence d’une violation manifeste, eu égard aux intérêts supérieurs de l’enfant, d’une règle de droit considérée comme essentielle dans l’ordre juridique d’un État membre ou d’un droit reconnu comme fondamental dans cet ordre juridique, l’article 23 du règlement du 27 novembre 2003 ne permet pas à la juridiction de cet État membre, qui se considère compétente pour statuer sur la garde d’un enfant, de refuser de reconnaître la décision d’une juridiction d’un autre État membre qui a statué sur la garde de cet enfant.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Divorce (Effets personnels) Exequatur

en lire plus

La Commission européenne, dans le cadre de son contrôle régulier de la bonne application du droit de l’Union, a adressé le 19 novembre 2015, deux avis motivés à la France.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Contrat de travail, exécution

Officiers publics ou ministériels