Agrégateur de flux

Federación de Servicios Privados del sindicato Comisiones obreras
SOPO
Les déplacements que les travailleurs sans lieu de travail fixe ou habituel effectuent entre leur domicile et le premier ou le dernier client de la journée constituent du temps de travail

H&M Hennes & Mauritz / OHMI - Saint Laurent (Forme de sacs à main)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
Le Tribunal de l’UE rejette les recours formés par H&M contre l’enregistrement de deux modèles de sac d’Yves Saint Laurent

EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Cooperation Principles, a cura di Bob Wessels, Eleven International Publishing, 2015, pp. 136, ISBN 9789462365865, Euro 32,50.

[Dal sito dell’editore] This publication contains a set of 26 EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Cooperation Principles (‘EU JudgeCo Principles’) and 18 EU Cross-Border Insolvency Court-to-Court Communications Guidelines (‘EU JudgeCo Guidelines’). These EU JudgeCo Principles will strengthen efficient and effective communication between courts in EU Member States in insolvency cases with cross-border effects. They have been produced in a period of two years (2013-2014), developed by a team of scholars of Leiden Law School and Nottingham Law School, in collaboration with some 50 experts, including 25 judges representing just as many different EU countries. The principles are set in EU stone, in that they especially function within the framework of the EU Insolvency Regulation. The texts have been aligned with the text of the recast of the Regulation, as published early December 2014. The EU JudgeCo Principles try to overcome present obstacles for courts in EU Member States such as formalistic and detailed national procedural law, concerns about a judge’s impartiality, uneasiness with the use of certain legal concepts and terms, and, evidently, language. The texts further build on existing experience and tested resources, especially in cross-border cases in North America, but tailor-made into an EU insolvency law context. These Principles include a set of very practical EU JudgeCo Guidelines to facilitate communications in individual cross-border cases. The project was funded by the European Union and the International Insolvency Institute (III) (www.iiiglobal.org) and we thank both sponsors for their continued support.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Towards the end of July, the Court at Amsterdam applied the recent CJEU judgment in CDC, on the application of (now) Article 8’s rule on anchor defendants. The case also involved CDC – busy bees on the competition enforcement front, this time pursuing inter alia Kemira, a Finnish company, using Akzo Nobel NV, domiciled in The Netherlands, as anchor defendants.

The court referred in extenso to the CJEU’s CDC case, noting inter alia that it is not up to CDC to show that the suit was not just introduced to remove Kemira from the Finnish judge: that Kemira suggests that introduction of the suit in The Netherlands is not very logical given the absence of factual links to that Member State, does not suffice. The court also adopted the CJEU’s finding on choice of court and liability in tort. In the absence of specific proviso in standard contractual choice of court, liability such as here, for infringement of competition law, cannot be assumed.

Finally, at 2.18, the Court also referred to argument made by Kemira that Finish and Swedish law ought to apply to the interpretation (not: the validity) of the choice of court agreement. That would have been an interesting discussion. However in light of the court’s earlier judgment on the irrelevance of the court of choice, the court did not entertain that issue.

Geert.

 

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) précise les règles à respecter lors de l’introduction d’une action en contrefaçon par le titulaire d’un brevet essentiel à une norme en position dominante contre un contrefacteur allégué.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Brevet d'invention Contrefaçon

en lire plus

Par deux arrêts des 7 et 16 juillet 2015, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme décide d’appliquer la procédure d’arrêt pilote à l’égard de la Pologne et de la Hongrie pour des pratiques incompatibles avec les articles 6, § 1 (droit à un procès équitable dans un délai raisonnable), et 13 (droit à un recours effectif) de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Cour d'appel de Montpellier, 02 septembre 2015

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, chambre correctionnelle, 1er septembre 2015

Panasonic Corp. et MT Picture Display Co. Ltd / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal réduit les amendes infligées par la Commission à Panasonic et à Toshiba au titre de leur participation à une entente sur le marché européen des tubes pour téléviseurs

Tribunal de grande instance de Mulhouse, chambre correctionnelle, 1er septembre 2015

Deuxième chambre civile de la Cour de cassation (demande de récusation d'un magistrat de cour d'appel)

Panasonic Corp. et MT Picture Display Co. Ltd / Commission
Concurrence
Le Tribunal réduit les amendes infligées par la Commission à Panasonic et à Toshiba au titre de leur participation à une entente sur le marché européen des tubes pour téléviseurs

Ferreira da Silva e Brito e.a.
SOPO
L'Etat portugais devra indemniser les travailleurs d'Air Atlantis, ancienne filiale de TAP

Deniz Halil Deren has authored a book (in German) on expropriation in private international law (“Internationales Enteignungsrecht – Kollisionsrechtliche Grundlagen und Investitionsschutzfragen”). Published by Mohr Siebeck the book looks at issues of choice of law and investor protection.

The official abstract reads as follows:

Since the 20th century, states have extensively been exercising their right to expropriate private property. These expropriations have involved goods (such as works of art, means of production or natural resources) as well as shares, claims and intellectual property rights. Yet under what conditions does German law recognise expropriations performed by other states and what role does investment protection law play in this context?

Further information is available on the publisher’s website.

The Hague Academy of International Law has made available the programme of the 2016 summer courses of public and private international law.

The private international law course will run from 1 to 19 August 2016 and will be opened by an an inaugural lecture on Languages and Private International Law by Erik Jayme.

The general course (Private International Law: Aspirations and Realities) will be delivered by Symeon C. Symeonides.

Special courses will be given by Lotfi Chedly (The Effectiveness of International Commercial Arbitration), Lauro da Gama e Souza Jr. (The UNIDROIT Principles and the Law Governing International Trade Contracts), Michael Hellner (Private International Law Issues concerning Surrogacy Arrangements), Sergio Marchisio (The Legal Regime of International Space Activities: Between Public and Private Law), Cyril Nourissat (Restrictive Practices in Private International Law), Marta Pertegás Sender (Foreign Civil and Commercial Judgements: From Reciprocity to a Multilateral Scheme?) and Karsten Thorn (The Protection of Small and Medium Enterprises in Private International Law).

The directors of studies will be Maxi Scherer and Sabine Corneloup.

Interested applicants will be able to register online as of November 1st, 2015, by filling out the relevant registration forms on the Academy’s website.

« Le fait qu’une décision rendue dans un État membre est contraire au droit de l’Union ne justifie pas que cette décision ne soit pas reconnue dans un autre État membre au motif qu’elle viole l’ordre public de cet État dès lors que l’erreur de droit invoquée ne constitue pas une violation manifeste d’une règle de droit considérée comme essentielle dans l’ordre juridique de l’Union et donc dans celui de l’État membre requis ou d’un droit reconnu comme fondamental dans ces ordres juridiques ».

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Règlement de l'Union européenne Jugement étranger (Procédure civile)

en lire plus

Effet de commerce

A posting out off the box here, so bear with me. Neither Brussels I nor the Recast include many requirements with respect to (now) Article 8(1)’s rule on joinders. A case against a defendant, not domiciled in the court’s jurisdiction, may be joined with that against a defendant who is so domiciled, if the cases are ‘so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together in order to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments’. There is of course CJEU case-law on what ‘so closely connected’ means however that is outside the remit of current posting.

As I reported recently, the CJEU has introduced a limited window of abuse of  process viz Article 8(1), in CDC. The Court’s overall approach to Article 8(1) is not to take into account the subjective intentions of plaintiff, who often identify a suitable anchor defendant even if is not the intended target of their action. The Court does make exception for one particular occasion, namely if it is found that, at the time the proceedings were instituted, the applicant and that defendant had colluded to artificially fulfil, or prolong the fulfilment of, (now) Article 8’s applicability.

What if at the time the proceedings were instituted, applicant artificially ignores the fulfilment of, (now) Article 8’s applicability?

The Aldi rule of the courts of England and Wales, and its recent application in Otkritie, made me ponder whether there is merit in suggesting that the CJEU should interpret Article 8(1) to include an obligation, rather than a mere possibility, to join closely connected cases. I haven’t gotten much further than pondering, for there are undoubtedly important complications.

First, a quick look at the Aldi rule, in which the Court of Appeal considered application of the Johnson v Gore Wood principles on abuse of process of the (then) House of Lords, to an attempt to strike out a claim for abuse of process on the basis that the claim could and should have been brought in previous litigation. Aldi concerned complex commercial litigation, as does Otkritie. The result of Aldi is that plaintiffs need to consult with the court in case management, to ensure that related claims are brough in one go. Evidently, the courts need to walk a fine rope for the starting point must be that plaintiffs have wide discretion in deciding where and when to bring a claim: that would seem inherent in Article 6 ECHR’s right to a fair trial.

In Otkritie [the case nota bene does not involve the Brussels Regulation], Knowles J strikes the right balance in holding that the Aldi requirement of discussing with the court had been breached (and would have cost implications for Otkritie in current proceedings) but that otherwise this breach did not amount to abuse of process.

Now, transporting this to the EU level: to what degree could /should Article 8 include a duty to join closely related proceedings? Should such duty be imposed only on plaintiff or also on the court, proprio motu? A crazy thought perhaps for the time being, but certainly worthwhile pondering for future conflicts entertainment.

Geert.

Taricco e.a.
Aide d'État
En empêchant, en matière de fraude grave à la TVA, l’infliction effective et dissuasive de sanctions, en raison d’un délai global de prescription trop bref, la réglementation italienne est susceptible de porter atteinte aux intérêts financiers de l’Union

The European Commission has issued a call for proposals concerning action grants to support transnational projects on judicial training covering civil law, criminal law, fundamental rights and fight against terrorism and radicalisation.

Proposals presented under the civil law priority shall focus notably on legal instruments in family matters and successions, in particular Regulation No 650/2012 successions upon death; legal instruments in civil and commercial matters, in particular Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims, Regulation No 1896/2006 creating a European Order for Payment Procedure, Regulation No 861/2007 establishing a European Small Claims Procedure, Regulation No 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Brussels Ia); Regulation No 655/2014 creating a European Account Preservation Order.

The Commission also calls for proposals aimed at training enforcement authority agents as regards instruments in the area of civil judicial cooperation, in particular: Regulation No 2201/2003 on matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa); Regulation No 805/2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims and Regulation No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order.

The deadline for applications is 16 November 2015.

Further information available here.