Agrégateur de flux

Protection des consommateurs

Protection des consommateurs

Testament

Société civile professionnelle

Professions médicales et paramédicales

Verein für Konsumenteninformation
Rapprochement des législations
L’augmentation des tarifs de télécommunication en fonction d’un indice des prix à la consommation ne permet pas aux abonnés de dénoncer leur contrat

Espagne / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal de l’UE confirme la décision de la Commission ordonnant la récupération de l’aide d’État octroyée par l’Espagne aux opérateurs de la plate-forme de télévision terrestre

On 13 October 2015 the European Commission issued a report on the application of Regulation No 1896/2006, establishing a European order for payment procedure. Through a uniform and simplified procedure based on the use of standard forms, the Regulation allows a creditor to request a competent court in a EU Member State to issue an order of payment. If the debtor fails to contest the claim in the way prescribed by the Regulation, the order may be enforced without prior exequatur in the rest of the European Judicial area.

In its report, the Commission begins by addressing the issues relating to the submission of applications for an order of payment and their management by courts.

In particular, as regards the examination of applications, the Commission observes that even though inaccuracies in the information on the parties have in some States led to a high number of returned applications, the forms available in the European e-Justice portal effectively assist users in filling in applications in a correct way.

Whereas some States manage to issue the order of payment within the 30-days period provided by the Regulation, most of the Member States fail to comply with that deadline. In some cases, orders have been issued after no less than nine months from the application. With regard to the costs of the procedure, the Commission finds that fees are similar to those required for litigating under analogous national procedures, which largely vary among Member States.

According to the Commission, the opposition, review and enforcement of the European order of payment do not raise specific questions, even if the rate of opposition to the order differs from one Member State to another.

On a different note, the report underlines the prejudice that might be brought about by orders issued against consumers, as courts are instructed to issue orders for payment without examining the substantive bases of the claim. In this respect, the Commission considers, inter alia, that, since Article 8 of the Regulation requires the court to examine the claim on the basis of the information available to it, the seised court may, in case of doubts as to the justification of part of the claim, issue only a partial order.

The report concludes that the application of the Regulation has improved the handling of uncontested claims in cross-border disputes. Yet, the procedure does not seem to be sufficiently known among businesses, citizens, practitioners and courts. Accordingly, in the Commission’s view, the Regulation needs to be better promoted, including through the opportunities of cooperation provided by the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters.

Renouvellement du mandat de M. Alfredo Calot Escobar en qualité de greffier de la Cour de justice

First update of the information referring to Article 76 of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, to be found here (OJ C 390/10, 24.11.2015).

The French Cour de Cassation’s in Banque Privee Edmond de Rothschild Europe v X held that a unilateral jurisdiction clause was invalid under (doubtful) reference to (then) Article 23 of the Brussels I Regulation. The clause was held not to be binding under the French doctrine of clauses potestatives, even though the agreed forum was Luxembourg (whence the validity of the clause was judged under the lex fori derogati, not prorogati; that will no longer be possible under the recast Jurisdiction Regulation). In Credit Suisse, it extended this view (without reference this time to clauses potestatives) to choice of court in the context of the Lugano Convention.

In Apple Sales international v eBizcuss.com, the Cour de Cassation effectively qualifies its Rotschild case-law. The Court of Appeal held as unacceptable, under the theory of clauses potestatives, choice of court obliging eBizcuss to sue in Ireland, while allowing Apple Sales International to sue either in Ireland, or the place of registered office of eBizcuss, or any place where Apple Sales would have suffered damage. The Cour de Cassation now held that this clause is perfectly acceptable under Article 23 (now 25)’s regime for it corresponds to the need of foreseeability. (Which more extreme unilateral clauses arguably do not have). As always, the judgment is scant on details of the underlying contract whence it is not entirely clear whether French law was lex contractus or whether the Cour stuck to lex fori as determining validity of choice of court.

Geert.

La CEDH a condamné la Russie qui a refusé à une retraitée le bénéfice d’une assistance juridique gratuite dans le cadre d’une procédure pour une infraction qualifiée d’ « administrative ».

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

La directive du 25 octobre 2012 (dir. 2012/29/UE) destinée à renforcer et regrouper les droits des victimes de la criminalité par la création de normes minimales européennes est applicable depuis le 16 novembre 2015 dans l’ensemble des États membres conformément à sa date limite de transposition. 

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

« Les requêtes aux fins de certification des titres exécutoires français, en vue de leur reconnaissance et de leur exécution à l’étranger, en application de l’article 41 du règlement (CE) n° 2201/2003 du Conseil du 27 novembre 2003, sont présentées au juge qui a rendu la décision ».

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

The 10th edition of the International Seminar on Private International Law, organized by Prof. Fernández Rozas and Prof. de Miguel Asensio will be held next 14 and 15 April 2016, at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Complutense of Madrid .

At the sitting of Thursday 14 special attention will be paid to the recent reforms of Spanish private international law; the latest developments towards codification of private international law in Latin America will also be addressed . The following sessions, on Friday, will focus on the development of private international law in Europe and within international commercial arbitration.

As in previous editions the main lectures of the seminar will be in charge of well-known scholars, including Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute Hamburg), Roberto Baratta (University of Macerata), Bertrand Ancel (Paris II), Christian Heinze (University of  Hannover) and Sebastien Mancieaux (University of Dijon). Nonetheless, the seminar is open to all scholars, either Spanish or foreigners, willing to participate with brief presentations. In this regard proposals including both the title and a brief summary are to be sent no later than December 15 to Prof. Angel Espiniella Menéndez (espiniell@gmail.com). The final written version of the presentations, not exceeding 25 pages, is to be submitted before April 1, 2016. Subject to prior peer-review they will be published in the Anuario Español de Derecho Internacional Privado, vol. XVI.

The registration deadline to attend the seminar, as well as the programme and further information will be announced in due time.