Agrégateur de flux

As reported when Szpunar AG issued his Opinion, key question in Diageo, Case C-681/13 is whether the fact that a judgment given in the State of origin is contrary to EU law (in the case at issue; trademark law) justifies that judgment’s not being recognised in the State in which recognition is sought, on the grounds that it infringes public policy (‘ordre public’) in that Member State. Precedent for Diageo did not look good and indeed the ECJ on Thursday confirmed the views of its AG.

Where the breach concerns infringement of EU law, the ECJ formulates the test as follows: ‘the public-policy clause would apply only where that error of law means that the recognition of the judgment concerned in the State in which recognition is sought would result in the manifest breach of an essential rule of law in the EU legal order and therefore in the legal order of that Member State’ (at 50). The relevant breach of EU trademark law is simply not in that league (at 51).

The Court does (at 54) seem to suggest – although one has to infer that a contrario – that if one were to show that Member State courts deliberately infringe EU law, even if that EU law is not in the ‘essential’ category, such pattern of national precedent (imposed by the higher courts), could lead to refusal of recognition. However this was not the suggestion made in the case at issue.

Geert.

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se prononce sur la conformité avec le droit de l’Union, et notamment le principe de la libre prestation des services et l’obligation de communication des « règles techniques », d’une législation quintuplant le montant d’une taxe grevant l’exploitation de machine à sous dans des salles de jeux, puis interdisant sans période transitoire ni indemnisation, l’exploitation de telles machines hors des casinos. 

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Association Cultes Défenseur des droits Laïcité Liberté d'association

en lire plus

Les États membres de l’Union européenne peuvent, à certaines conditions, exiger d’étrangers qu’ils réussissent un examen d’intégration civique avant d’autoriser leur entrée et leur séjour sur leur territoire aux fins du regroupement familial. La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) se prononce en ce sens, dans un arrêt du 9 juillet 2015 (sur les conclusions de l’avocat général, V. Dalloz actualité, 31 mars 2015, C. Fleuriot ).

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Association Cultes Défenseur des droits Laïcité Liberté d'association

en lire plus

PhD Researcher Elena Alina Ontanu (supervised by Prof. Xandra Kramer) from Erasmus University Rotterdam is conducting an empirical and comparative research on the functioning of the European Order for Payment and the European Small Claims Procedure in England and Wales, France, Italy and Romania. Practitioners from one these jurisdictions having experience with (one of) these procedures are warmly invited to fill in the surveys by clicking the links below. The collected data aim to gain a better insight into the use and functioning of these procedures in the selected Member States.

England and Wales
– European Order for Payment
– European Small Claims Procedure

France
– Injonction de payer européenne
– Règlement européen des petits litiges

Italy
– Ingiunzione europea di pagamento
– Procedimento europeo per le controversie di modesta entità

Romania
– Somatia europeana de plata
– Procedura europeana privind cererile cu valoare redusa

The surveys are divided in several sections regarding various aspects of the procedures. Please note that some questions might not be relevant for all legal professions. The time necessary for filling in a survey ranges between fifteen to thirty minutes, and participation will remain anonymous. Multi-session access to the surveys is possible from the same computer. The survey will remain open until 30 September 2015.

We thank you for sharing your invaluable experience and views.

On July 16, 2015, the often-thought-of-as-“liberal” (but it may surprise you) Ninth Circuit issued a decision confirming the high hurdles to bring suit against non-U.S. corporations in U.S. courts (and also confirmed how hard it can be to bring suit against U.S. corporations for alleged harms occurring abroad).  The plaintiff in the case, Loredana Ranza (a U.S. citizen residing in the Netherlands at the time of suit and now living in Germany), brought suit against her Netherlands employer, Nike European Operations Netherlands, B.V. (NEON), and its parent corporation, Nike, Inc., for violations of federal law prohibiting sex and age discrimination.  The questions before the Court were (1) whether NEON was subject to general jurisdiction in Oregon, (2) whether Nike’s contacts with Oregon could be attributed to NEON to establish general jurisdiction, and (3) whether the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.

As to NEON, the Ninth Circuit noted that merely doing business in the forum state cannot suffice for purposes of general jurisdiction.  The Court deemed it insufficient to establish general jurisdiction that NEON employees traveled frequently to Oregon and entered into business agreements there.  Thus, because NEON did not have its principal place of business and was not incorporated in Oregon, it was not subject to general jurisdiction.  Note:  there has been some question following recent Supreme Court decisions whether merely “doing business” in the forum can establish general jurisdiction.  The Ninth Circuit has come down on the side of “no,” which could be very influential as other courts continue to deal with this issue.

Next, the Court considered whether Nike’s contacts could be attributed to NEON to establish general jurisdiction.  Note the twist:  most imputation cases involve using a domestic subsidiary’s contacts with the forum state to get jurisdiction over a foreign parent corporation.  This question had been briefed but was not decided by the Supreme Court in its Daimler decision.  Here, the Ninth Circuit held that contacts could only be attributed when the subsidiary acts as the alter ego of the parent.  Because the plaintiff could not show that the corporate formalities were not observed, Nike’s contacts could not be imputed to NEON.  In so holding, the Ninth Circuit interred its agency test for attribution, whereby contacts could be imputed when the subsidiary performed “important” work that the parent would have to do for itself if the subsidiary did not exist.  In light of the alter ego test, it will now be incredibly hard to base jurisdiction on attribution of contacts in the Ninth Circuit.

Finally, since Nike was subject to general jurisdiction in Oregon, the Court considered whether the case should be dismissed on forum non conveniens grounds.  According to the Court, “[o]n balance, the inconvenience of litigating this case in Oregon, the inefficiency and inadvisability of relitigating claims the Dutch ETC has already decided, and the adequacy of the ETC as an alternative forum establish that the District of Oregon is not an appropriate forum for Ranza’s claims.”

Taken as a whole, this case confirms that U.S. may be moving away from permissive jurisdictional rules, and that the U.S. may no longer be quite such a magnet forum.

The publishing house Gieseking has recently released the “Festschrift für Dagmar Coester-Waltjen” (for more information see the publisher’s website). Edited by Katharina Hilbig-Lugani, Dominique Jakob, Gerald Mäsch, Phillipp Reuß and Christoph Schmid the volume contains, in part II, a large number of (mostly, but not only German language) contributions relating to private international law and international civil procedure:

• Tu?rul Ansay, State Courts in Commercial Arbitration and Confidentiality (pp. 843 ff.)
• Jürgen Basedow, Gegenseitigkeit im Kollisionsrecht (pp. 335 ff.)
• Katharina Boele-Woelki, Van het kastje naar de muur – Zur Eheschließung in Deutschland bei bestehender registrierter Partnerschaft nach niederländischem Recht (pp. 349 ff.)
• Josef Drex, The European Unitary Patent System: On the ‘Unconstitutional’ Misuse of Conflict-of-Law Rules (pp. 361 ff.)
• Reinhold Geimer, Grenzüberschreitender Gewaltschutz in der Europäischen Union: Eine Facette der Europäisierung des internationalen Verfahrensrechts (pp. 375 ff.)
• Peter Gottwald, Aktuelle Probleme des Internationalen Schiedsverfahrensrechts (pp. 389 ff.)
• Beate Gsell, Die Zulässigkeit von Gerichtsstandsvereinbarungen mit Verbraucherbeteiligung und Drittstaatenbezug unter der neuen EuGVO (pp. 403 ff.)
• Bettina Heiderhoff, Der Erfolgsort bei der Persönlichkeitsrechtsverletzung im Internet (pp. 413 ff.)
• Tobias Helms, Neubewertung von Privatscheidungen nach ausländischem Recht vor dem Hintergrund der Entwicklungen im deutschen Sach-, Kollisions- und Verfahrensrecht (pp. 431 ff.)
• Dieter Henrich, Im Ausland begründete und im Inland fortgeführte heterosexuelle Lebenspartnerschaften (pp. 443 ff.)
• Burkhard Hess, Grenzüberschreitende Gewaltschutzanordnungen im Europäischen Justizraum (pp. 453 ff.)
• Erik Jayme, Zur Formunwirksamkeit von Testamenten im Internationalen Privatrecht (pp. 461 ff.)
• Eva-Maria Kieninger, Das internationale Sachenrecht als Gegenstand eines Rechtsakts der EU – eine Skizze (pp. 469 ff.)
• Peter Kindler, Gerichtsstandsvereinbarung und Rechtshängigkeitssperre: Zum Schutz vor Torpedo-Klagen nach der Brüssel Ia-Verordnung (pp. 485 ff.)
• Helmut Köhler, Wettbewerbsstatut oder Deliktsstatut? – Zur Auslegung des Art. 6 Rom-II-VO (pp. 501 ff.)
• Herbert Kronke, Internationales Beweisrecht in der Praxis des Iran-United States Claims Tribunal (pp. 511 ff.)
• Volker Lipp, Anerkennungsprinzip und Namensrecht (pp. 521 ff.)
• Dirk Looschelders, Die allgemeinen Lehren des Internationalen Privatrechts im Rahmen der Europäischen Erbrechtsverordnung (pp. 531 ff.)
• Nigel Lowe, Strasbourg in Harmony with The Hague and Luxembourg over Child Abduction? (pp. 543 ff.)
• Ulrich Magnus, Rom I und der EuGH – für die Auslegung der Rom I-VO bereits relevante EuGH-Rechtsprechung (pp. 555 ff.)
• Peter Mankowski, Primärrechtliche Anerkennungspflicht im Internationalen Familienrecht? (pp. 571 ff.)
• Heinz-Peter Mansel, Gesamt- und Einzelstatut: Die Koordination von Erb- und Sachstatut nach der EuErbVO (pp. 587 ff.)
• Dieter Martiny, Internationale Kindesentführung und europäischer Menschenrechtsschutz – Kollision unterschiedlicher Ansätze (pp. 597 ff.)
• Thomas Pfeiffer, Der internationale Anwendungsbereich des Mindestlohngesetzes (pp. 611 ff.)
• Peter Picht, „Wo die Liebe Wohnsitz nimmt“ – Schlaglichter auf deutsch-schweizerische Ehegattenerbfälle in Zeiten der EuErbVO (pp. 619 ff.)
• Hanns Prütting, Der Fall Weber des EuGH und der dingliche Gerichtsstand des Art. 22 Nr. 1 EuGVVO (pp. 631 ff.)
• Thomas Rauscher, Nur ein Not-Sitz des Rechtsverhältnisses Zum gewöhnlichen Aufenthalt im Personalstatut (pp. 637 ff.)
• Walter Rechberger, Zu den Bewilligungsvoraussetzungen einer vorläufigen Kontenpfändung nach der EuKoPfVO (pp. 651 ff.)
• Oliver Remien, Unsicherheiten bei astreinte, dwangsom und Zwangsgeld im Europäischen Rechtsraum – zu Art. 55 EuGVVO 1215/2012 / Art. 49 EuGVVO 44/2001 sowie der GMVO in der Rechtspraxis – (pp. 661 ff.)
• Philipp M. Reuß, Gestaltung des europäischen abstammungsrechtlichen Kaleidoskops – Einige Überlegungen zur Anerkennung der niederländischen Duo-Mutterschaft in Deutschland (pp. 681 ff.)
• Giesela Rühl, Grenzüberschreitender Verbraucherschutz: (Nichts) Neues aus Brüssel und Luxemburg? (pp. 697 ff.)
• Klaus Sachs und Evgenia Peiffer, Schadensersatz wegen Klage vor dem staatlichen Gericht anstatt dem vereinbarten Schiedsgericht: Scharfe Waffe oder stumpfes Schwert im Arsenal schiedstreuer Parteien? (pp. 713 ff.)
• Haimo Schack, Beweisregeln und Beweismaß im Internationalen Zivilprozessrecht (pp. 725 ff.)
• Peter Schlosser, „Interventionsklagen“ in Deutschland? (pp. 733 ff.)
• Klaus Schurig, Der Anlauf zu einem Paradigmenwandel im internationalen Gesellschaftsrecht (pp. 745 ff.)
• Rolf A. Schütze, Das chess clock Verfahren und andere Probleme des Beweisrechts im internationalen Schiedsverfahren (pp. 757 ff.)
• Kurt Siehr, Zur Reform des deutschen Internationalen Abstammungsrechts (Art. 19 und 20 EGBGB) (pp. 769 ff.)
• Hans Jürgen Sonnenberger, Zur Reform der kollisionsrechtlichen Behandlung der Eingehung einer Ehe und anderer personaler Lebens- und Risikogemeinschaften – ein zweiter Zwischenruf (pp. 787 ff.)
• Ulrich Spellenberg, Die zwei Arten einstweiliger Maßnahmen der EheGVO (pp. 813 ff.)
• Andreas Spickhoff, Vorsorgeverfügungen im Internationalen Privatrecht (pp. 825 ff.)
• Michael Stürner : Die Rolle des Kollisionsrechts bei der Durchsetzung von Menschenrechten (pp. 843 ff.)
• Rolf Stürner. Prozessökonomie als gemeineuropäischer Verfahrensgrundsatz? (pp. 855 ff.)
• Luboš Tichý: Die Anerkennung des Trusts als ein spezifisches Problem des IPR (pp. 865 ff.)
• Satoshi Watanabe: The Ratification of the Hague Child Abduction Convention and its Implementation in Japan (pp. 883 ff.)
• Marc-Philippe Weller: Die lex personalis im 21. Jahrhundert: Paradigmenwechsel von der lex patriae zur lex fori (pp. 897 ff.)
• Pelayia Yessiou-Faltsi: Deutsche Urteile über die Vaterschaftsfeststellung von nichtehelichen Kindern aus der Sicht der griechischen öffentlichen Ordnung (pp. 913 ff.)
• Reinhard Zimmermann: Assessment of Damages: Three Specific Problems (pp. 921 ff.)

È uscito il terzo numero di GenIUS, Rivista di studi giuridici sull’orientamento sessuale e l’identità di genere.

Il fascicolo include alcuni articoli dedicati a temi di diritto internazionale privato, tra cui i contributi di Marcella Distefano, Maternità surrogata ed interesse superiore del minore: una lettura internazionalprivatistica su un difficile puzzle da ricomporre (p. 160 ss.), Matteo M. Winkler, Senza identità: il caso Paradiso e Campanelli c. Italia (p. 243 ss.) ed Ester di Napoli. La Corte d’appello di Torino di fronte alla fecondazione assistita eterologa all’estero (p. 258  ss.).

Il fascicolo è reperibile a questo indirizzo.

Tobias Lutzi, the author of this post, works at the Institute of Foreign Private and Private International Law of the University of Cologne and studies at the University of Oxford.

The ECJ’s recent decision in Gazprom (Case C-536/13) is the latest addition to a series of judgments by the Court that have considerably reduced the remedies available to claimants who seek to enforce the negative dimension of an arbitration agreement, i.e. the other party’s obligation not to initiate court proceedings. They have created a coherent framework for the protection of arbitration agreements within the EU, which has been sanctioned and complemented by the recast of the Brussels I Regulation. Yet, a number of questions still remain open – some of which are unlikely to be answered any time soon.

The current status quo

Traditionally, four types of remedies are available to parties seeking enforcement of the negative dimension of an arbitration agreement from a court. First, they may ask the court seised by the other party to stay or dismiss the proceedings. Second, they may ask another court to issue an injunction against the party in breach in order to restrain the latter from initiating or continuing litigation (so-called ‘anti-suit injunctions’). Third, they may bring an action for damages to recover the loss incurred due to the litigation. Fourth, they may apply for the foreign judgment not to be recognized and enforced.

While courts in all member states of the EU regularly dismiss or stay proceedings brought in violation of an arbitration agreement, and refuse to recognize and enforce judgments obtained in breach of such an agreement, only English courts have granted anti-suit injunctions and awarded damages for breach of an arbitration agreement in the past. Yet, as far as litigation in the courts of EU member states is concerned, all of these remedies have been affected by the harmonized regime of jurisdiction and recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters that has been established by the Brussels Convention and its successor regulations.

It is true, though, that regarding the first remedy, i.e. a dismissal or stay of local proceedings, there has never been much doubt that the European instruments do not require the courts of a member state to adjudicate if this would violate a valid arbitration agreement; instead, they have to send the case to arbitration, as required by Art. II(3) of the New York Convention. The ECJ’s decision in Gazprom and the first paragraph of the new recital (12) of the Brussels I Recast merely confirm that this is still the case.

Access to the second remedy, i.e. anti-suit injunctions issued by English courts to prevent a party from litigating in breach of an arbitration agreement, has however been radically restricted by the ECJ’s case law. Consistently with its reasoning in Gasser (Case C-116/02) and Turner v Grovit (Case C-259/02), the Court held in West Tankers that “even though proceedings [to enforce an arbitration agreement via an anti-suit injunction] do not come within the scope of [the Brussels I Regulation], they may nevertheless have consequences which undermine its effectiveness”, if they “prevent a court of another Member State from exercising the jurisdiction conferred on it by [the Regulation]”, which includes the decision on the jurisdictional defence based on an arbitration agreement. Accordingly, “it is incompatible with [the Regulation] for a court of a Member State to make an order to restrain a person from commencing or continuing proceedings before the courts of another Member State on the ground that such proceedings would be contrary to an arbitration agreement.”

While the new recital (12) tries to clarify the scope of the exclusion of arbitration in Art. 1(2)(d) of the Regulation, nothing in the legislative history of the Recast, which left the actual text of the regulation otherwise unchanged, suggests that it was supposed to reverse the decision of the Grand Chamber in West Tankers. Thus, it was to the surprise of many that Advocate General Wathelet, in his opinion on Gazprom, argued that “the EU legislature intended to correct the boundary which the Court [in West Tankers] had traced between the application of the Brussels I Regulation and arbitration” with the Recast. He opined that para. 2 of recital (12), which excludes decisions “as to whether or not an arbitration agreement is null and void, inoperative or incapable of being performed” from the rules on recognition and enforcement, should be understood as excluding “the verification, as an incidental question, of the validity of an arbitration agreement [entirely!] from the scope of the Brussels I Regulation”. Consequently, “the fact that the Tribunale di Siracusa [in West Tankers] had been seised of an action the subject-matter of which fell within the scope of the Brussels I Regulation would not have affected the English courts’ power to issue anti-suit injunctions in support of the arbitration because […] the verification, as an incidental question, of the validity of an arbitration agreement is excluded from the scope of that regulation.”

But as the question submitted to the ECJ concerned the pre-recast regulation (No. 44/2001), the Court – while implicitly rejecting the Advocate General’s proposition that recital (12) “in the manner of a retroactive interpretative law, explains how that exclusion must be and always should have been interpreted” – did not need to (and did not) discuss this proposition; instead, the Court simply distinguished the present question of recognition and enforcement of “an arbitral award prohibiting a party from bringing certain claims before a court of that Member State from the question of the court issuing itself “an injunction […] requiring a party to arbitration proceedings not to continue proceedings before a court of another Member State”, only the latter type of injunction being “contrary to the general principle which emerges from the case-law of the Court that every court seised itself determines, under the applicable rules, whether it has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute before it”. Yet, the fact that the Court deemed such a distinction necessary and referred repeatedly to its decision in West Tankers may be seen as an indication that it does not consider this decision to be already overruled by the Recast.

Against this background, it certainly is surprising that the third remedy, i.e. damages for the breach of an arbitration agreement, has yet to be subject to a decision of the ECJ – and has neither been affected by any paragraph of the new recital (12). As English courts may no longer issue anti-suit injunctions – a remedy expressly admitted to prevent that “the plaintiff will be deprived of its contractual rights in a situation in which damages are manifestly an inadequate remedy” (Lord Millett in The Angelic Grace [1995] 1 Lloyd’s Rep 87) – it seems very likely that damage awards will become much more prevalent in English courts. They have thus been allowed by the High Court after the ECJ’s decision in West Tankers ([2012] EWHC 854 (Comm)) and awarded by the Court of Appeal in The Alexandros T [2014] EWCA Civ 1010.

Regarding the fourth remedy, i.e. the refusal to recognize and enforce a judgment obtained in breach of an arbitration agreement, recital (12) now provides a clear solution, which seems to limit the ECJ’s decision in Gothaer (Case C-456/11) and to reverse recent English case law (cf The Wadi Sudr [2009] EWCA Civ 1397). According to its paras 2 and 3, decisions as to the validity of an arbitration agreement are excluded from the provisions on recognition and enforcement, while decisions as to the substance of the dispute are subject to these provisions unless this would require a member state to violate its obligations (i.e. to enforce a valid arbitral award) under the New York Convention. This is not only a welcome step towards the legal certainty that the difficult relationship between the Regulation and the Convention indubitably requires but should also be understood as an attempt to counter-balance the absence of anti-suit injunctions within the Brussels I framework.

Open Questions

The case law of the ECJ and recital (12) of the Recast seem to provide a coherent and workable framework for the protection of arbitration agreements; they put a strong emphasis on the principle of mutual trust between the member states, but balance it out with their obligations under the New York Convention. Still, some questions remain open.

First, and foremost, the ECJ has held in Gazprom that the Regulation does not preclude the courts of a member state “from recognising and enforcing […] an arbitral award prohibiting a party from bringing certain claims before a court of that Member State”. But does the same apply to an arbitral anti-suit injunction restricting proceedings before a court of another member state? Several of the Court’s arguments – which are all carefully limited to the question of recognition and enforcement in the state where the relevant proceedings are brought – indicate that this might not be the case: while enforcing an arbitral award by ordering a party to stop or limit local proceedings raises “no question of an […] interference of a court of one Member State in the jurisdiction of the court of another Member State”, enforcing an award by ordering a party to stop or limit proceedings elsewhere might indeed amount to such an interference. While there is no risk “to bar an applicant who considers that an arbitration agreement is void, inoperative or incapable of being performed from access to the court before which he nevertheless brought proceedings” if they can contest recognition and enforcement in this very court, the defendant will indeed be denied access to that court if the courts of another member state enforce an arbitral award by ordering him to stay these proceedings. And while failure to comply with an arbitral anti-suit injunction “is not capable of resulting in penalties being imposed upon it by a court of another Member State”, the enforcement of such an injunction in another member state would attach to the award that exact kind of penalty. Thus, while the recognition of such an arbitral award in the member state where the proceedings are brought is no more contrary to the Brussels I Regulation than the court’s power to stay proceedings of its own motion in order to give effect to an arbitration clause, the enforcement of such an award by the courts of another member state would be much more similar to the situation which the ECJ ruled out in West Tankers.

Second, the ECJ has not yet decided on the admissibility of damage awards in view of its restrictive approach to anti-suit injunctions. English courts seem to distinguish the one from the other by treating anti-suit injunctions as a remedy for the jurisdictional dimension of arbitration agreements while considering damages as a remedy for their contractual dimension. Yet, one may argue that the practical effects of both remedies are still very similar, especially if damages are granted, as in The Alexandros T, by way of an indemnity even before litigation has finished. But although it is hard to see why the ECJ would not consider damage awards to be contrary to “the general principle that every court seised itself determines, under the rules applicable to it, whether it has jurisdiction to resolve the dispute before it” as formulated in West Tankers, it is indeed not very likely that the Court will get a chance to make such a decision after the English courts – the only courts that actually grant such awards – saw no need to submit the question in The Alexandros T.

Finally, it has been noted (by Hartley [2014] ICLQ 843, 866) that the new rules on recognition and enforcement of decisions that have been obtained in violation of an arbitration agreement in paras 2 and 3 of recital (12) leave open one particular case, namely the situation where a court is asked to recognize and enforce both an arbitral award made within the jurisdiction (and thus not creating an obligation under the New York Convention) and a conflicting judgment on the merits from another member state. While the wording of recital (12) indicates that the court has to give effect to the judgment, this would give the arbitral award the weakest effect in its “home jurisdiction”. The better approach therefore seems to be to consider arbitral awards made within the jurisdiction as a “judgment given between the same parties in the Member state addressed” and apply Art. 45(1)(c) of Brussels I by analogy.

Après des mois de suspension de la coopération judiciaire entre les deux pays, la France et le Maroc avaient signé en février 2015 un protocole d’entraide judiciaire. Un projet de loi autorisant son approbation a été adopté, le 15 juillet, par le Sénat (sur l’adoption par les députés, V. Dalloz actualité, 26 juin 2015 ). Le texte est donc adopté définitivement.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Par un arrêt du 16 juin 2015, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne confirme la compétence de la Banque centrale européenne et du Système européen de banques centrales dans la mise en œuvre du programme OMT destiné à garantir une politique monétaire saine et unique et veiller au respect de la stabilité des prix de la zone euro.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, Chambre de l'instruction, 19 février 2015

Huawei Technologies
Concurrence
L’introduction d’une action en cessation par le titulaire d’un brevet essentiel à une norme en position dominante contre un contrefacteur allégué peut constituer un abus de position dominante sous certaines conditions

A
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Le juge appelé à décider sur la responsabilité parentale est également compétent pour statuer sur la pension alimentaire due par l’un des parents envers ses enfants mineurs

Commission / Italie
Environnement et consommateurs
À cause de la mauvaise application de la directive déchets dans la région de Campanie, l'Italie est condamnée à payer une somme forfaitaire de 20 millions d'euros et une astreinte de 120 000 euros par jour de retard

CHEZ Razpredelenie Bulgaria
Principes du droit communautaire
L’installation de compteurs électriques à une hauteur inaccessible dans un quartier densément peuplé de Roms est de nature à constituer une discrimination fondée sur l’origine ethnique lorsque les mêmes compteurs sont installés dans d’autres quartiers à une hauteur normale