Dans l’arrêt rapporté, la chambre criminelle casse l’arrêt de la chambre de l’instruction déclarant l’appel de la partie civile recevable au motif que la chambre de l’instruction n’a pas répondu aux conclusions des mis en cause faisant valoir que la partie civile étant irrecevable à se constituer partie civile, son appel était également irrecevable.
Crim. 15 mai 2019, FS-P+B+I, nos 19-81.531 et 18-80.121
The Paris Court of Appeal will host a symposium on “L’attractivité de la place de Paris: Les chambres commerciales internationales: fonctionnement et trajectoire” (The attractiveness of Paris’s jurisdiction. The international Commercial Chambers: functioning and future trends) on June 14, 2019 (2pm-6pm).
Readers of this blog will remember that on February 7, 2018, the International Commercial Chamberof the Paris Court of Appeal was inaugurated.
The establishment of this specialized appellate international Commercial Chamberfollows the creation of the first International Chamber of the Paris Commercial Court of First Instance (“Chambre de Droit International du Tribunal de Commerce”) and fits well in the current developments of the international business courts all over Europe (and out of Europe too).
The international chambers of the Paris Commercial Court and Court of Appeal (hereafter referred to as the “International Commercial Courts of Paris” or the “ICCP”) are the latest examples of the modernization of French Legal System with respect to dispute resolution in commercial matters.
In the context of Brexit, the creation of the ICCP aims at enhancing the attractiveness and international competitiveness of French courts, combining flexibility, high quality and low costs.
The Paris Court of Appeal and the Faculty of Law of the Université de Paris Est Créteil (UPEC) will organize a symposium on June 14, 2019 at the Paris Court of Appeal. The conference will discuss the attractiveness of the Paris courts taking into account its latest evolution: the creation of the International Commercial Courts of Paris, with a focus on how these courts work in practice.
After the opening by Chantal Arens, first president of the Paris Court of Appeal and Gilles Cuniberti, professor of law at the University of Luxembourg, the event will be divided into three parts:
The conference, led by the judges sitting in the Paris international chambers, will provide a valuable feedback of 18 months of existence of the International Commercial Chamber of the Paris Court of Appeal. The future trends of the French ICCP, and their interaction with other courts in Europe will also be debated.
Emmanuel Gaillard, Visiting Professor at Yale Law School and Harvard Law School, will give the closing speech.
A detailed description of the afternoon’s program can be found on the Paris Court of Appeal’s website (in French only/English version to be published soon).
You can register by writing an email to: colloque.ca-paris@justice.fr
Links to previous relevant posts:
http://conflictoflaws.net/2011/paris-commercial-court-creates-international-division/
On the occasion of the XVIII National Meeting of Private International Law Professors, the Private International and Comparative Law Master’s Degree Program of the Central University of Venezuela will launch its new website and the first issue of its yearbook in Caracas. The event, organized jointly with the “Tatiana de Maekelt” Institute of Law, will gather professors of Private International Law from different Venezuelan law schools to discuss current topics of interest, including new methods of teaching and evaluation in this subject.
The Yearbook will allow professors, graduates, current students and visiting professors to share their views on the classic and current topics of Private International and Comparative Law. Its launching represents the desire to have a specialized publication on these matters within the Venezuelan forum.
The first issue of the Yearbook contains the first thesis submitted for a Master’s Degree on the institution of renvoi, four papers spanning International Procedural Law, electronic means of payment, cross-border know-how contracts and International Family Law, sixteen of the papers presented during the Commemoration of the Twentieth Anniversary of the Venezuelan Private International Law Act’s entry into force, held on February 6, 2019 and a collaboration by Professor Esplugues Mota, Professor of Private International Law at the University of Valencia (Spain), where he recalls his time as a visiting professor in 2000, 2003 and 2008.
The Yearbook’s full table of contents is as follows:
Eugenio Hernández-Bretón
Presentación (Presentation)
I. Trabajos de Tesis (Thesis)
Caroline Bergeron
El reenvío en el Derecho Internacional Privado contemporáneo (The renvoi in Contemporary Private International Law)
II. Trabajos monográficos (Papers)
José Antonio Briceño Laborí
El principio de favor recognitionis como criterio de interpretación de los requisitos de eficacia de las sentencias extranjeras. Perspectivas desde el Derecho internacional privado venezolano (The Principle of favor recognitionis as an interpretation criterion of the effectiveness requirements of foreign judgements. Perspectives from Venezuelan Private International Law)
Andrea Cruz Suárez y Pedro Ramírez Braiz
El Dash como medio electrónico de pago. Aspectos contractuales internos e internacionales (Dash as an electronic means of payment. Internal and international contractual aspects)
Luis Carlos Mota Arocha
Derecho aplicable a contratos internacionales de know how de acuerdo a la Ley de Derecho internacional privado (Law applicable to international know-how contracts according to the Private International Law Act)
Eugenio Hernández-Bretón
La fractura de la familia venezolana ante el Derecho internacional privado (The fracture of the Venezuelan family before Private International Law)
III. Events. Commemoration of the twentieth anniversary of the Private International Law Act’s entry into force
Eugenio Hernández-Bretón
La Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado y la universidad venezolana. Palabras de apertura (The Private International Law Act and the Venezuelan university. Opening words).
Claudia Madrid Martínez
Reflexiones en torno al sistema de fuentes del Derecho internacional privado venezolano (Reflections on the system of sources of the Venezuelan Private International Law Act).
Victor Gregorio Garrido Ramos
Cuestiones terminológicas en el artículo 1 de la Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado venezolana (Terminological issues in Article 1 of the Venezuelan Private International Law Act).
Anna María Tambasco B.
Situaciones jurídicas válidamente creadas (Vested Rights)
Rubén Valdivieso
Orden Público (Ordre Public)
Mirian Rodríguez Reyes de Mezoa
Los derechos reales en la Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado venezolana. 20 años después (In rem rights under the Venezuelan Private International Law Act. 20 years later)
Guillermo Palao Moreno
Criterios de conexión para la determinación de la ley aplicable en materia de familia y sucesiones en los sistemas de Derecho internacional privado venezolano y europeo (Connection criteria for the determination of the applicable law to family and successions matters under the Venezuelan and European Private International Law systems)
Froila Eugenia Pimentel C.
La indemnización de los daños punitivos en Venezuela en aplicación del artículo 9 de la Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado (The compensation of punitive damages in application of the Article 9 of the Private International Law Act)
Rosalvi Villegas
El principio de proximidad en la Ley de Derecho de Internacional Privado venezolana (The principle of proximity in the Venezuelan Private International Law Act)
Gerardo Feliche Lione Pedra
La cláusula de sumisión a la jurisdicción en los contratos de adhesión y las soluciones prácticas aportadas por la Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado (The choice of forum clause in adhesion contracts and the practical solutions provided by the Private International Law Act).
Andrea Carolina Olivares Hernández
La sumisión contemplada en el artículo 46 de la Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado (Submission to Venezuelan courts under Article 46 of the Private International Law Act).
Andrés Carrasquero Stolk
Derogatoria de la jurisdicción de los tribunales venezolanos en contratos de trabajo internacionales (Derogation of the Venezuelan jurisdiction in international labour contracts).
Luis David Briceño Pérez
Las acciones por intereses o derechos colectivos o difusos no son class actions (Actions for collective or diffuse interests or rights are not class actions)
María Alejandra Ruíz
Ejecución de las medidas cautelares de conformidad con la Ley de Derecho Internacional Privado venezolana (Enforcement of precautionary measures under the Venezuelan Private International Law Act)
José Antonio Briceño Laborí
Efectos de las sentencias extranjeras y procedimiento de exequátur (Effects of foreign judgments and exequatur procedure).
Eugenio Hernández-Bretón
La “historia secreta” de la Ley de Derecho internacional privado. Palabras de clausura (The “secret history” of the Private International Law Act. Closing remarks).
IV. Visiting Professors
Carlos Esplugues Mota
La Maestría de Derecho internacional privado de la Universidad Central de Venezuela: tres participaciones y un agradecimiento infinito (The Private International Law Master’s at the Central University of Venezuela: three visits and infinite gratitude)
The event will take place on June 10th.
Upon release the Yearbook will be available at: http://www.mdipc-ucv.com
The claimant in this action and the respondent to the appeal, Airbus, claims declarations (1) that it is not liable to the defendant insurers for losses incurred in relation to an incident which occurred on 29 September 2013 in which an aircraft which it had manufactured sustained damage when landing in Rome and (2) that proceedings commenced against it by the defendants in Italy have been commenced contrary to the terms of an English exclusive jurisdiction clause. The clause in question is contained in an Airframe Warranties Agreement dated 8 July 2010 (“the Warranties Agreement”) concluded between (among others) Airbus and the defendants’ insured, the Italian airline company Alitalia. The issue on this appeal is whether the English court has jurisdiction over these claims by virtue of the jurisdiction clause. Moulder J held that it does and the defendant insurers (henceforth “the appellants”) now appeal.
Appellants contend, in outline, that the jurisdiction clause is of limited scope and does not extend to Airbus’s claims in this action, that the claim for a negative declaration falls within an arbitration clause in a different agreement, a Purchase Agreement dated 31 October 2005 which provides for ICC arbitration in Geneva, and that their own proceedings in Italy under articles of the Italian Civil Code are not within the scope of either clause. They say in addition that they cannot be in breach of an exclusive jurisdiction clause to which, as insurers, they were never parties and that, regardless of the true construction of the clause, there is no basis on which the English court can make a declaration against them (essentially, per Turner v Grovit and West Tankers).
Males LJ at 49: The standard of proof to be applied in determining whether the English court has jurisdiction under Article 25 of the Brussels Recast Regulation is that of a good arguable case. Kaifer Aislimentos was discussed as relevant authority. However, at 52: ‘sometimes it will be sensible, when a question of law arises on an application to challenge jurisdiction, for the court to decide it rather than merely deciding whether it is sufficiently arguable.’ Discussion of the contractual construction of the choice of court clause then follows at 62 ff and concludes in favour of a wide application in casu.
At 77 ff: The question whether the appellants’ claim in Italy falls within the scope of the English jurisdiction clause. Males LJ notes correctly that this depends on the nature of the claim brought in Italy, not on the defences which may be or have in fact been raised by Alitalia. At 82 he fairly swiftly concludes that even though the Italian claim is for breach of non-contractual obligations under articles of the Italian Civil Code, it is sufficiently connected to the Warranties Agreement to be within the scope of the exclusive jurisdiction clause. At 83 therefore: the commencement and pursuit of the Italian proceedings was contrary to the terms of that clause and that the English court has jurisdiction to determine that claim.
That then brings us to the discussion of what the English courts might potentially do to assist the party relying on the choice of court clause – given the unavailability of anti-suit per West Tankers. Noteworthy is that the new lis alibi pendens rule protecting choice of court following Brussels Ia, seemingly was not deployed or discussed in the Italian proceedings – at any rate there is no reference to any such discussion in the Court of Appeal judgment (other than perhaps at 84 which seems to suggest that amendment of claims brought the issue to the surface and this may not yet have been the case at the time of the discussion of the Italian proceedings).
A statement by the English courts finding infringement of the clause, would not just have an impact on cost rulings but would also ground a delictual claim. At 97 Males LJ settles the discussion whether such a declaration might be possible: ‘I can see no valid basis on which West Tankers can be distinguished. If it is held that commencement of the Italian proceedings by Alitalia would have been a breach of the jurisdiction clause in the Warranties Agreement, it follows that their commencement by the appellant insurers is a breach of an equivalent obligation in equity which Airbus is entitled to enforce and that the English court has jurisdiction to grant a declaration to say so.’
Interesting and highly relevant authority.
Geert.
(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Heading 2.2.2.10.2., Heading 2.2.9, Heading 2.2.9.4.`
Dans l’arrêt rapporté, la chambre criminelle souligne que le juge ne peut accorder une dispense de peine que s’il constate dans sa décision que le reclassement du coupable est acquis, que le dommage causé est réparé et que le trouble résultant de l’infraction a cessé.
Sur le fondement d’une violation du volet procédural de l’article 2 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme, la Cour européenne a condamné la France à verser 20 000 € pour dommage moral au requérant, blessé par arme à feu par un policier lors de son interpellation.
Par un arrêt du 2 mai 2019, la CJUE s’arrête sur la notion de consommateur utilisée par l’article 15 de la convention de Lugano, en la mettant en perspective avec les dispositions de la directive 2008/48/CE, concernant les contrats de crédit aux consommateurs.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer