Bail commercial
Transfert de bail - Personne handicapée
Election
On 12 and 13 December 2019, the University of Ljubljana (Slovenia) is the destination of many experts and academics of different national and professional backgrounds who will join in the discussion about various legal aspects of the family property in cross-border situations in EU. The event titled “Best Practices in European Family and Succession Law” is the second public event within the Justice co-funded project PSEFS which stands for “Personalised Solution in Family and Succession Law”. Here is the programme of the event.
The news from the project and more are available at the PSEFS web page.
[2019] EWHC 3196 (Ch) Kinsella et al v Emasan et al is not quite as extensive an analysis on choice of court as Etihad Airways v Prof Dr Lucas Flöther which I review here. Nevertheless the required ‘good arguable case’ standard is again responsible for the extensive discussion of the issue.
Issues are similar as under A25 BIa – in the case at issue it is the Lugano Convention (Article 23) that is engaged. Teverson M’s analysis is very much a factual, contractual one: the basis of Emasan’s (defendant, domiciled at Switzerland) jurisdiction challenge is that: it is domiciled in Switzerland; an alleged 2002 Agreement was an oral agreement which was not subject to any jurisdiction agreement; that alleged 2002 Agreement was not varied by 2006 and 2007 Deeds in such a way as to bring claims for breaches of its alleged terms within the ambit of the jurisdiction clauses contained in those later Deeds, but was superseded by them; there is no other basis upon which the jurisdiction of the English Courts is established in relation to claims based on the 2002 Agreement.
Whether choice of court was made for the 2002 agreement depended on whether A23 Lugano’s conditions were fulfilled that the agreement be made in writing or evidenced in writing; or in a form which accords with practices which the parties have established between themselves (the lex mercatoria gateway was not relevant at issue).
Every one of the written agreements made to give effect to claimant’s entitlement under the original, oral 2002 Agreement included a jurisdiction clause recognising the jurisdiction of the English Courts. A great deal of emphasis was placed on witness statements. At 101 Master Teverson holds that the agreement on jurisdiction under the 2002 agreement can properly in the circumstances of this case be regarded as evidenced by the jurisdiction clauses in the 2006 and 2007 Deeds.
Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Ch.2, Heading 2.2.9
Le plan de lutte contre les violences faites aux femmes, présenté fin novembre à l’issu du Grenelle, semble être une réponse insuffisante, ou tout du moins partielle, au regard des obligations internationales que la Convention du Conseil de l’Europe sur la prévention et la lutte contre la violence à l’égard des femmes fait peser sur la France.
We are happy to officially announce that the European Association of Private International Law (EAPIL) has recently been founded!
An independent and non-partisan organization registered as a non-profit association under the laws of Luxembourg, EAPIL aims to promote the study and development of private international law by fostering the cooperation of academics and practitioners as well as the exchange of information on the sources of the discipline, its scholarship and practice.
To learn more about EAPIL – and to become a member – please check out the Association’s website.
To learn about the EAPIL founding conference, to be held at the University of Aarhus (Denmark) in May 2020, please visit the official conference website.
Droit de diffusion
Indemnisation - Transport
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer