Flux européens

Virginia Pardo Iranzo, Competencia, Reconocimiento y Ejecución de Resoluciones Extranjeras en la Unión Europea, Tirant lo Blanch, 2016, pp. 351, ISBN: 9788491193005, Euro 34,90.

[Dal sito dell’editore] Hace apenas un año entró en vigor el Reglamento 1215/2012, sobre competencia, reconocimiento y ejecución de resoluciones extranjeras en la Unión Europea. El mismo, además de fijar los criterios para la determinación de la competencia judicial internacional tiene la virtud de eliminar el exequatur como trámite previo a la ejecución de títulos extranjeros. El presente libro analiza el citado reglamento y lo hace desde una perspectiva práctica, dando respuestas a las dudas interpretativas que su articulado está planteando. Junto con este instrumento, de carácter general, se analizan entre otros la reciente orden europea de retención de cuentas (Reglamento 655/2014) o el problemático Reglamento 4/2009, relativo a la obligación de alimentos, cuyo ámbito de aplicación es específico.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Régimes matrimoniaux de participation aux acquêts et autres mécanismes participatifs entre époux en Europe, a cura di Elena Lauroba Lacasa e Maria Esperança Ginebra Molins, LGDJ, 2016, pp. 296, ISBN: 9782365170581, Euro 28,00.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – L’adoption par l’Allemagne et la France d’un régime matrimonial commun de participation aux acquêts, dont il a été pris acte lors du douzième conseil des ministres franco-allemand le 4 février 2010, donne tout son intérêt à l’étude comparative et approfondie de cette situation. Ce livre regroupe ainsi les contributions présentées lors du colloque qui s’est tenu les 7 et 8 novembre 2013 à la Faculté de Droit de Barcelone. Le défi était de présenter une cartographie comparatiste des différents régimes économiques matrimoniaux de participation aux acquêts, ainsi que d’identifier les mécanismes adoptés par des systèmes ayant fait le choix de consacrer un régime de séparation de biens – exemple pris de la Catalogne – non sans faciliter une communication participative des gains des époux. C’était aussi l’occasion d’étudier d’autres initiatives européennes et formules participatives, parmi lesquelles les options ouvertes aux couples de fait.

 Ulteriori informazioni sul volume sono disponibili qui.

France / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission qui qualifie d’aide d’État la garantie implicite illimitée accordée par l’État français à l’Institut français du pétrole

France / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission qui qualifie d’aide d’État la garantie implicite illimitée accordée par l’État français à l’Institut français du pétrole

France / Commission
Aide d'État
Le Tribunal annule la décision de la Commission qui qualifie d’aide d’État la garantie implicite illimitée accordée par l’État français à l’Institut français du pétrole

Schlechtriem & Schwenzer: Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods, a cura di Ingeborg Schwenzer, Oxford University Press, 2016, ISBN 9780198723264, pp. 1728, GBP 265.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Now in force in over 80 countries, the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is one of the most successful and wide-reaching attempts to unify legal instruments for international commerce. As global sales transactions increase, the CISG’s range of influence in international practice has significantly expanded, potentially governing 80% of world trade. In addition to the growing case law, the volume of case law reporting and scholarly writing on the Convention and its provisions and problems has increased dramatically. The Convention also continues to influence legislators on the international as well as the domestic level. This is the fourth edition in English of the Commentary on the United Nations (UN) Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Since the publication of the first edition in 1998, the book has become an invaluable source for the comprehension and discussion of the Convention, frequently cited by legal writers, tribunals, and courts all over the world. Thoroughly revised to reflect the growth and complexity of case law relating to the Convention, the book also considers new developments in the field of the CISG, particularly the accession of Brazil to the Convention. It also assesses all relevant scholarly writing on the CISG since 2009, with a special emphasis on the opinions issued by the CISG Advisory Council that are being considered as persuasive authority by courts and tribunals across the globe.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour d’annuler l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube en tant que marque de l’Union

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour d’annuler l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube en tant que marque de l’Union

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour d’annuler l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube en tant que marque de l’Union

Geert Van Calster, European Private International Law, 2a ed., Hart Publishing, 2016, ISBN 9781849466721, pp. 576, GBP 32.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Usable both as a student textbook and as a general introduction for legal professionals, European Private International Law is designed to reflect the reality of legal practice throughout the EU. This second edition provides a thorough, up-to-date overview of core European private international law, in particular the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II Regulations (jurisdiction, applicable law for contracts and tort), while additional chapters deal with private international law and insolvency, freedom of establishment, corporate social responsibility and finally a review of two Regulations in the family law arena: Brussels II bis (matrimonial matters and parental responsibility) and the EU Succession Regulation.

Il sommario del volume può leggersi qui. Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The CJEU has in my view taken the sensible approach in C-366/13 Profit Investment Sim, on (among others) whether choice of court included in a bond prospectus, binds not just the original transactional parties but also the buyers of such bonds on the secondary markets or via intermediaries. (An issue which many of us pondered in Kolassa but which was not sub judice there).

Parties at issue were Commerzbank (formerly Dresdner), the bond issuer; Redi, financial intermediary licensed by the UK FSA and subscriber of all relevant bonds on the primary market; and Profit, an Italian company, who bought part of the bonds of Redi, on the secondary market. Dresdner’s prospectus contains choice of court in favour of the English courts.

First, on the issue of the jurisdiction clause. The referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 23(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation 44/2001 (both now part of Article 25) must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfies the formal requirements laid down in Article 23(1)(a) [‘in writing or evidenced in writing’] where (i) it is contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds, (ii) it is enforceable against third parties who acquire those bonds through a financial intermediary and (iii), in the event that the first two parts of the second question are answered in the negative, it corresponds to a usage in the field of international trade or commerce for the purpose of Article 23(1)(c).

Choice of court in the prospectus and the impact on the primary market.

The Court first of all holds that the ‘formal requirement’ of (now Article 25 a (a) ”in writing or evidenced in writing’ for the issue of choice of court between Dresdner and Redi is only met (along the lines of Colzani Case 24/76) if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance of the clause by Redi, or contains an express reference to the prospectus. The latter in particular is quite likely.

Choice of court in the prospectus and enforceability against third parties acquiring through a financial intermediary.

Next, the Court (at 30) holds that the same two alternatives apply for the relationship between Redi and Profit. Here the court refers to Refcomp and  distinguishes it, basically by pointing to the specific examples of bills of lading and choice of court in shareholders registries, cases in which the CJEU had previously accepted transferability of choice of court to third parties, in specific circumstances. (Please refer to both the Refcomp judgment and to current judgment (at 33 ff) for detail).

The Court consequently held (at 37) that choice of court contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established, which it is for the referring court to verify, that (i) that clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the financial intermediary, (ii) the third party, by acquiring those bonds on the secondary market, succeeded to the financial intermediary’s rights and obligations attached to those bonds under the applicable national law, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing that clause. (Emphasis added).

The emphasis I added is quite important: the CJEU does not hold that such succession is somehow part of an EU Ius Commune.

Finally, if the answer to the first two questions is negative, is there usage in international trade or commercial custom between the parties? 

This, the Court holds, has to be determined by the national court. The CJEU (at 48) recalls its earlier case-law in particular C-106/95 MSG:  actual or presumed awareness of a usage on the part of the parties may be made out, in particular, by showing either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that, in that sector, a particular course of conduct is sufficiently well known because it is generally and regularly followed when a particular type of contract is concluded, so that it may be regarded as being an established practice.

The Court does though give a few more practical things which the national court needs to look out for: at 49. In order to determine, in the main proceedings, whether the insertion into the prospectus of a jurisdiction clause constitutes a usage in the sector in which the parties operate, of which those parties were aware or ought to have been aware, the referring court must take into account, inter alia, the fact that that prospectus was approved in advance by the Irish Stock Exchange and made available to the public on the latter’s website, which does not seem to have been contested by Profit in the proceedings on the merits. In addition, the referring court must take account of the fact that it is undisputed that Profit is a company active in the field of financial investments as well as of any commercial relationships it may have had in the past with the other parties to the main proceedings. The national court must also verify whether the issue of bonds on the market is, in that sector, generally and regularly accompanied by a prospectus containing a jurisdiction clause and whether that practice is sufficiently well known to be regarded as ‘established’.

 

Lest one forgets, the Court’s judgment is also relevant for a more general query on the nature of (now) Article 7(1): must the action seeking the annulment of a contract and the restitution of the amounts paid on the basis of a document the nullity of which is established, be regarded as ‘matters relating to a contract’ (the existence of which plaintiff seeks to dispute)? Yes, it does: if only (at 54) to ensure that Article 7(1) cannot simply be torpedoed by one party claiming that there is no contract.

(The judgment also reviews the conditions of application of (now) Article 8(1), with respect to ‘irreconcilability’ of judgments).

This judgment is quite relevant in yet again the CJEU having to defer to national law on the issue of transferability (see the emphasis I added, above). The Court very clearly does not wish to overplay its hand in trying to force a European Ius Commune in private law, via the use of private international law.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1; Heading 2.2.11.1.a; 2.2.9.3;.2.2.9.7; 2.2.12

 

 

Una sentenza del Tribunale di Bologna del 9 novembre 2015 tratta della legge applicabile alla donazione e alla ripetizione dell’indebito.

La controversia trae origine dall’erogazione di una somma di denaro da parte di una società con sede a Panama a favore di una persona fisica residente in Italia.

Nella prospettazione della società panamense, attrice in giudizio, tale somma avrebbe dovuto servire all’acquisto di un immobile sito in Italia per conto della stessa società, ma era stata trattenuta dal percipiente, senza titolo, ed utilizzata da questi per scopi personali; di qui la domanda di restituzione proposta al giudice italiano.

Il convenuto, per parte sua, contestava la fondatezza della pretesa attorea, affermando che la somma gli era stata versata in adempimento di un’obbligazione naturale, o comunque a titolo di donazione, rilevando che la dazione aveva per sfondo la lunga relazione sentimentale che lo aveva legato all’amministratrice della società panamense.

Ritenuta la propria giurisdizione e sollecitato il contraddittorio sulla questione della legge applicabile nelle forme dell’art. 101, comma 2°, del codice di procedura civile, il Tribunale di Bologna considera, dapprima, l’ipotesi che la fattispecie integri un caso di ripetizione dell’indebito e ritiene, a tal fine, di poter fare riferimento all’art. 61 della legge 31 maggio 1995, n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, in tema di obbligazioni nascenti dalla legge, ricavandone l’applicabilità della legge italiana, quale “legge dello Stato in cui si è verificato il fatto da cui deriva l’obbligazione”.

La sentenza, per la verità, non prende espressamente posizione circa la possibile applicabilità ratione temporis del regolamento n. 864/2007 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni extracontrattuali (c.d. Roma II), e in particolare del suo art. 10, relativo all’arricchimento senza causa. Si legge in motivazione, peraltro, che anche “a considerare la fattispecie come ‘illecito’, secondo la specifica nozione dell’articolo 2 [del regolamento c.d.Roma II], si avrebbe comunque applicazione del diritto italiano, essendosi la fattispecie conclusa con l’arrivo del bonifico” nella disponibilità del convenuto, in Italia.

Individuata in questo modo la legge ipoteticamente applicabile al pagamento di indebito, il Tribunale si interroga in ordine alla sussistenza o meno di un titolo che giustifichi il trasferimento della somma di denaro in grado di escludere il diritto alla restituzione dell’indebito. Viene innanzitutto osservato che la causa del pagamento non può consistere in un’obbligazione naturale — come avanzato dalla convenuta — atteso che “la imputazione della liberalità è in capo alla società attrice [che], per ovvie ragioni, non può avere avuto un rapporto sentimentale” e che, pertanto, “non è possibile che essa abbia avuto, nei confronti del [convenuto], obbligazioni naturali”.

Ritenendo, all’esito di questo riscontro, di non poter inquadrare la fattispecie nella categoria delle obbligazione naturale, il giudice passa ad analizzare la seconda ipotesi di qualificazione dedotta dalla convenuta, giungendo a scorgere nell’invio della somma di denaro una donazione.

Basandosi su questa qualificazione, il Tribunale bolognese identifica la norma di conflitto pertinente nell’art. 4, par. 2, del regolamento n. 593/2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (Roma I), pervenendo così alla conclusione che la legge applicabile al rapporto litigioso è la legge panamense, non essendo dubbio — si legge nella  motivazione — “che la prestazione caratteristica della donazione sia quella del donante, che è panamense”.

Appurato che la donazione debba essere assoggettata alla legge panamense, il giudice accerta che essa è valida ed efficace in conformità alle norme di tale ordinamento. Pertanto, ritenuto nel merito che l’erogazione della somma fosse al tempo sorretta dalla causa della donazione, viene escluso il carattere indebito del pagamento, con conseguente rigetto della domanda.

Si ringrazia per la segnalazione l’avv. Claudio Pezzi.

Minori e immigrazione: quali diritti?, a cura di Caterina Fratea e Isolde Quadranti, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2015, ISBN: 9788849531008, pp. XIV+186, Euro 21.

Il volume, di cui è disponibile qui il sommario completo, affronta fra gli altri, con uno scritto di Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona), i profili internazionalprivatistici della protezione dei minori, segnatamente alla luce della Convenzione dell’Aja del 19 ottobre 1996 sulla competenza il riconoscimento la legge applicabile l’esecuzione e la cooperazione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e protezione dei minori.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Un percorso tra i diritti – Scritti scelti di Bruno Nascimbene, Giuffrè, 2016, pp. XII + 806, ISBN: 9788814213946, Euro 95.

La raccolta è divisa in quattro sezioni, una delle quali è dedicata al Diritto internazionale privato e processuale nella dimensione europea.

L’indice completo può leggersi qui. Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Nella cornice del ciclo di seminari Hybrid Legal Regimes, il Dipartimento di Studi giuridici dell’Università Bocconi di Milano ospita, il 25 maggio 2016, un incontro dal titolo Jurisprudence Unconfined: Legal Pluralism and the Conflict of Laws.

Dopo un’introduzione di Yane Svetiev (Univ. Bocconi), interverrà Horatia Muir Watt (SciencesPo), a cui si affiancheranno, come discussants, Alexis Galan e Kellen Trilha Schappo (Univ. Bocconi).

Le conclusioni sono affidate a Paola Mariani (Univ. Bocconi).

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Si intitola Le clausole di scelta del foro nei contratti internazionali un incontro formativo in programma a Torino il 10 giugno 2016, organizzato dall’Ordine degli Avvocati di Torino, con l’Union Internationale des Avocats e dal Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Torino.

Gli interventi, preceduti da una relazione di Margherita Salvadori (Univ. Torino), sono affidati ad esponenti di studi legali di diversi paesi europei, sotto la moderazione di Paolo Lombardi (Studio legale ELEXI).

Il programma completo e maggiori informazioni si trovano qui.

When my tweets on the CJEU are not followed quickly by a blog post, assume I got snowed under. Or that other developments require more immediate analysis. Taser, Case C-175/15, is easily dismissed perhaps as not all that stunning or shocking (puns abound), yet as often, it is worthwhile highlighting what the case does not answer, rather than what it did elucidate.

Taser International, whose seat is in the United States, entered into two non-exclusive distribution agreements with Gate 4. Under those agreements, Gate 4 and its administrator, Mr Anastasiu, undertook to assign to the other contracting party the Taser International trade marks which they had registered, or for which they had applied for registration, in Romania.

Following Gate 4’s and Mr Anastasiu’s refusal to fulfil that contractual obligation, Taser International brought an action before the District Court, Bucharest. Regardless of the existence in those contracts of clauses conferring jurisdiction on a court situated in the US, Gate 4 and Mr Anastasiu entered an appearance before the Romanian court without challenging its jurisdiction. The Court ordered them to undertake all the formalities necessary for the registration of the assignment.

The appeals court seeks clarification as to whether the Brussels I Regulation is applicable to the dispute before it, since the parties elected, for the resolution of their disputes, the courts of a third country. The referring court considers that such a clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country may, for this reason alone, preclude the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 24 (Article 26 in the Brussels I Recast). 

On the assumption, however, that that latter rule is applicable, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether it should, nevertheless, decline jurisdiction on another ground. It also queried whether the exclusive jurisdictional rules of Article 22 are applicable: does a dispute concerning an obligation to assign a trade mark, likely to result in a registration under national law, fall within paragraph 4 of that article.

The CJEU firstly recalled its finding in C-111/09 CPP Vienna Insurance Group: choice of court made per Article 23 (now Article 25) Brussels I, can be overruled by voluntary appearance. The latter in that case simply acts as an amended choice of court. In Taser (at 24) the court now adds that this applies also if that initial choice of court was made ex-EU. The deliberate, later choice, remains a deliberate choice. The Court makes no reference to discussions e.g.  in the context of Gothaer, whether the Brussels I Regulation at all should be concerned with choice of court ex-EU or should be entirely indifferent. Arguably, in the Recast Regulation, there is consideration for choice of court ex-EU, in particular in recital 24 combined with Article 33.

Intellectual property lawyers will be disappointed with the Court’s answer to the issue of whether trade mark assignment falls within Article 22(4) [now 24(4)]: Romanian courts in any event had jurisdiction. (at 29).

Plenty left open, therefore. Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, chapter 2, heading 2.2.6.7, heading 2.2.7 .

Happy Saint’s day to all fellow lawyers. Whatever Faith or non-Faith we profess, Dean Wigmore’s 1936’s paper is worth a read.

Geert.

The rather long judgment in T-47/15 Germany v Commission is neatly summarised by the CJEU here. I have reported before on both the State Aid and the free movement implications of the Court’s seminal findings in Preussen Elektra. In current case, the Court essentially upholds the EC’s finding of the more recent German regime amounting to illegal State aid and incompatibility with the Internal Market – in contrast with its earlier findings in Preussen Elektra.

Disappointingly, Preussen Elektra was distinguished rather than its merits called into question. Rather like Advocate-General Bot I stubbornly insist that Preussen Elektra is bad case-law and I continue to call upon the Court to scrap its findings in same.

Geert.

Sergio Carbone, Chiara Tuo, Il nuovo spazio giudiziario europeo in materia civile e commerciale – Il regolamento UE n. 1215/2012, 7a ed., Giappichelli, 2016, pp. XII + 428, ISBN: 9788892103436, Euro 39.

[Dall’indice del volume] Capo I. L’evoluzione della disciplina dello spazio giudiziario europeo e il suo àmbito di applicazione. – Capo II. I criteri di distribuzione di competenza giurisdizionale nello spazio giudiziario europeo. Il foro generale e i fori speciali. – Capo III. In particolare, i fori speciali delle domande connesse e delle controversie riguardanti i contraenti deboli. – Capo IV. I fori esclusivi. – Capo V. I fori delle misure cautelari e i criteri di coordinamento dell’attività giurisdizionale. – Capo VI. La libera circolazione (in particolare gli effetti e i controlli) dei provvedimenti giurisdizionali nello spazio giudiziario europeo.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.