Flux européens

InnoLux / Commission
Concurrence
La Cour confirme l’amende de 288 millions d’euros infligée à InnoLux pour sa participation à l’entente sur le marché des panneaux LCD

K et A
Espace de liberté, sécurité et justice
Les États membres peuvent exiger que les ressortissants de pays tiers réussissent un examen d’intégration civique préalablement au regroupement familial

Commission / France
Aide d'État
La France a manqué à ses obligations en s’abstenant de récupérer l’aide de 220 millions d’euros accordée à la SNCM au titre de certains services de transport maritime assurés entre Marseille et la Corse

Travel is a wonderful opportunity to catch up on reading back issues of The Economist. Now I have made a valiant effort in recent years to reduce the pile. I am now only a few months behind. (I read the magazine diagonally when it comes out. Properly a little later). In the issue of 28 February of this year, there is a report on the town of Windsor, New York, along with 14 other towns along New York’s border with Pennsylvania, wanting to secede and join Penn. I have not been able to get an update on the state of affairs, and I am not sure whether the idea got much traction.

It is the ultimate answer to regulatory competition: to move an entire slice of territory into what is perceived as a preferable regulatory regime. The cause? New York’s strict (some might say: cautious) policy on fracking /shale gas. Penn State is fracking friendly. New York has banned it.

The Economist also flag that State secession in the US has only ever succeeded in 1777: when a chunk of New York became Vermont. Now, that’s a State where others pack and move to in upwards harmonisation fashion: for Vermont is arguably the top of the regulatory curve when it comes to environment and food regulation.

Geert.

Federcoopesca e.a. / Commission
Agriculture
Des associations de pêcheurs italiens ne peuvent pas contester devant le Tribunal de l’UE un plan d’action prévoyant des mesures nationales dans le domaine, notamment, de la pêche à l’espadon

L’annata 2015 del Japanese Yearbook of International Law raccoglie, fra gli altri, alcuni contributi relativi alla Convenzione dell’Aja del 1980 sugli aspetti civili della sottrazione internazionale di minori (ratificata dal Giappone nel 2014).

Tra questi: Introductory Note: Japan’s Conclusion of the Hague Convention on the Civil Aspect of International Child Abduction (Tatsuki Nishioka, Takako Tsujisaka); International Child Abduction Cases and the Act for the Implementation of the Hague Convention — Impact on Domestic Cases and Family Law — (Masayuki Tanamura); Case Proceedings for the Return of an Abducted Child and the Compulsory Execution in Japan (Masako Murakami); The 1980 Hague Convention and Mediation — A German Perspective — (Martina Erb-Klünemann); Return Orders under the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction — The Issues Facing the Japanese courts — (Nigel Vaughan Lowe).

Ulteriori informazioni sul fascicolo sono qui disponibili.

On 3 and 4 December 2015, the University of Bologna will host a conference on the topic The EU as a forum of labour migration: Entrepreneurship, Exploitation, Dignity and Development. 

After a keynote speech, three roundtables will focus on the role of migrants as entrepreneurs and job seekers, labour exploitation of migrants, and future perspectives between countries of destination and countries of origin.

Scholars and experts are invited to submit their papers.

[From the introduction to the call] – Despite the ideas and intentions for a more dynamic EU economy, the EU still continues to have national labour markets, with obstacles to a real regime of free movement of not European workers. Migrants whose human rights are duly promoted and respected, who are well integrated in the countries where they live, and who are able to exercise their talents and energy in productive employment and decent work, can contribute mightily to the development of their countries of origin and destination, and to the well-being of their families and communities, while providing economic, social and cultural added value and also pursuing their own development as human beings. A policy framework that is respectful of the human rights and dignity of every human being, in particular of minors, women and vulnerable persons, is a prerequisite for realizing the full developmental potential of international migration and averting negative manifestations such as forced labour, trafficking in human beings, smuggling of migrants, discrimination and xenophobia.

Submissions, accompanied by a summary and a cv, must be sent before 10 October 2015 to migrationconference@puntoeuropa.eu.

Further information available here.

 

Much of the analysis in Swissmarine would have been redundant had Denmark been subject to the Insolvency Regulation. Please refer to the judgment for the many lines of arguments by applicants and defendants – Alexis Hogan has good summary over at the RPC blog.

SwissMarine Corporation Limited (“SwissMarine”) applied for an anti-suit injunction against O. W. Supply & Trading A/S (“OW Supply”), a Danish company that had filed for bankruptcy in the Bankruptcy Court of Aalborg, Denmark on 7 November 2014. SwissMarine sought an order restraining OW Supply (i) from proceeding with an action that it had brought in the District Court in Lyngby, Denmark (the “Lyngby action”) and (ii) from commencing any other or further proceedings in Denmark or elsewhere against SwissMarine directed to obtaining a “disputed” sum claimed under an ISDA Master Agreement (the “ISDA Agreement”) or any transaction thereunder. (For a related discussion of the ISDA Agreement, see Anchorage).

Brussels I recast does not apply for the dispute arguably falls under that Regulation’s insolvency exception. The Insolvency Regulation as noted does not apply for Denmark has opted out of it. The High Court held essentially that the Lygnby action is not covered by the jurisdiction agreement because it is not a suit, action or proceedings relating to a dispute arising out of or in connection with the ISDA Agreement or any non-contractual obligations arising out of or in relation to it. The Court followed the defendant’s argument that OW Supply is not seeking to have determined any dispute under the ISDA Agreement or about the parties’ rights and obligations under it, and there is no dispute about their contractual rights and obligations. The question for the Lyngby court will be how the Danish insolvency regime applies to them. In the words of Smith J: ‘The wording (of the choice of court clause in the ISDA Agreement – GAVC) does not bear on the question whether OW Supply can invoke the protection of Danish insolvency rules, or whether the jurisdiction agreement was intended to prevent this. I cannot accept that the parties evinced an intention in the schedule that OW Supply (or SwissMarine) should abandon the protection of its national insolvency regime.’ (at 26) In conclusion, SwissMarine have not shown a sufficient case that the jurisdiction agreement applies to the Lyngby action to justify its submission that it should be granted an anti-suit injunction on the grounds that in bringing and pursuing the action OW Supply is acting in breach of it. (at 29).

Smith J also discusses at length the impact of the Brussels I and Brussels I recast Regulation on the reference, in the choice of court provision of the ISDA Agreement, to ‘Convention’ (ie 1968 Brussels Convention) parties. Athough this discussion had no bearing on the eventual outcome, the Court’s (disputable) conclusion that reference to Convention States should be read as such (and not include ‘Regulation’ States), in my view would merit adaptation, by parties ad hoc or generally, of the relevant choice of court clause.

Geert.

 

 

 

 

Geert.

France / Commission
Aide d'État
L’avance d’actionnaire proposée à France Télécom par les autorités françaises alors que l’opérateur connaissait une crise importante ne peut pas être qualifiée d’aide d’État

Quel avenir pour la théorie générale des conflits de lois? Droit européen, droit conventionnel, droit commun, a cura di Tristan Azzi e Olivera Boskovic, Bruylant, 2015, pp. 266, ISBN 2802749366, Euro 70.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – La période contemporaine se caractérise en droit international privé par une très importante diversification des sources. Cette diversification est particulièrement présente dans le domaine des conflits de lois. Depuis le début du XXIe siècle, de nombreuses règles de conflit nouvelles ont été adoptées : certaines sont issues de règlements européens ou de conventions internationales ; d’autres ont été créées à l’initiative des législateurs nationaux. À la diversité des sources s’ajoute une diversité des matières concernées : obligations contractuelles et non contractuelles, divorce et séparation de corps, successions, obligations alimentaires, adoption, partenariats enregistrés, mariage, etc. On constate ainsi une accumulation de textes spéciaux. Ce double mouvement – diversification des sources et multiplication des textes spéciaux – invite à s’interroger sur l’avenir de la théorie générale des conflits de lois. Pareille théorie repose sur l’étude de mécanismes transversaux afférents à la mise en œuvre des règles de conflit : qualification, renvoi, lois de police, exception d’ordre public, fraude à la loi, règles relatives à l’office du juge… Ces mécanismes ont pour objet d’assurer le bon fonctionnement des règles de conflit et la promotion des objectifs traditionnellement assignés au droit international privé. Or, l’analyse des textes évoqués précédemment révèle d’importants bouleversements en la matière. Certains mécanismes comme le renvoi semblent être sur le point de disparaître, d’autres ont vu leur teneur précisée et unifiée au sein des règlements européens susmentionnés, d’autres encore ont été abandonnés à la discrétion des États membres, lesquels les encadrent comme bon leur semble. Parallèlement, certains mécanismes ont vu le jour, tels que la clause dite « marché intérieur », ou se sont généralisés, comme la clause d’exception. On assiste en somme à un profond renouvellement de la théorie générale des conflits de lois. La situation est telle que l’on s’interroge sur l’opportunité de l’adoption d’un règlement européen qui lui serait exclusivement dédié. Il est donc fondamental de réfléchir à l’avenir de ladite théorie et de proposer des solutions cohérentes assurant un fonctionnement satisfaisant des règles de conflit nationales et européennes. Cet ouvrage intéressera les praticiens du droit international privé et du droit du commerce international (avocats, notaires, huissiers de justice, magistrats…) ainsi que les universitaires.

La prefazione al volume, redatta da Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon (Univ. Panthéon-Assas) e Paul Lagarde (Univ. Panthéon-Sorbonne), è reperibile a questo indirizzo. Il sommario ed ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

New Media Online
SERV
Selon l’avocat général Szpunar, le site Internet d’un quotidien comportant des éléments audiovisuels ne constitue pas un service de médias audiovisuels au sens du droit de l’Union

Bund für Umwelt und Naturschutz Deutschland
Environnement et consommateurs
Les obligations prévues par la directive-cadre sur l’eau en matière d’amélioration et de prévention de la détérioration s’appliquent à des projets particuliers tels que l’approfondissement d’un fleuve navigable

I diritti delle famiglie migranti fra integrazione e tutela della diversità, a cura di Alessandra Annoni e Paola Mori, Giappichelli, 2015, ISBN: 9788834859605, pp. XII + 204, Euro 24.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Il volume fornisce la riflessione di un gruppo di studiosi su alcune fra le principali problematiche giuridiche connesse alle migrazioni di gruppi familiari. La prima parte è dedicata ai profili di diritto internazionale e di diritto dell’Unione europea, la seconda a quelli di diritto internazionale privato.  

La seconda parte del volume ospita, fra gli altri, un contributo di Francesco Salerno (Univ. Ferrara) su I diritti fondamentali della persona straniera nel diritto internazionale privato: una proposta metodologica, e un contributo di Ester di Napoli (Univ. Cagliari) su Il richiamo ad ordinamenti plurilegislativi a base personale tra protezione dell’identità culturale e divieto di discriminazione.

L’indice del volume è disponibile qui. Ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

Hélène Gaudemet-Tallon, Compétence et exécution des jugements en Europe – Matières civile et commerciale, 5a ed., L.G.D.J., 2015, ISBN: 9782275040004, pp. 912, Euro 67.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Les textes étudiés dans cet ouvrage – Convention de Bruxelles du 27 septembre 1968, règlements 44/2001 et 1215/2012 – portent sur la compétence directe ainsi que sur la reconnaissance et l’exécution des décisions ; ils doivent assurer la réalisation d’un véritable « espace judiciaire européen » en matière civile et commerciale. Le règlement 1215/2012 (dit Bruxelles I bis) a apporté des modifications substantielles au règlement 44/2001. L’application de ces textes est guidée par une riche jurisprudence de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne. Dans le cadre de l’AELE, les Conventions de Lugano de 1988, puis de 2007, ont adopté des systèmes « parallèles », d’abord à la Convention de Bruxelles de 1968 puis au règlement 44/2001. La Convention de 2007 est en vigueur entre tous les États de l’Union européenne, la Norvège, l’Islande et la Suisse.  Cette cinquième édition, tenant compte de l’évolution des textes et de la jurisprudence, a pour ambition d’être utile non seulement aux universitaires (étudiants et enseignants) s’intéressant au droit international privé européen, mais aussi aux praticiens (magistrats, avocats, notaires) qui appliquent ces textes. 

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

On 7 July 2015 the University of Bedfordshire (Luton, UK) will host a symposium on The New Frontiers of Parenthood.

Law-makers and courts around the world are attempting to develop legal frameworks to regulate the changing nature of parenthood, in light of recent scientific advances and developments in societal attitudes. This symposium brings together academics, researchers and practitioners engaging in a multidisciplinary conversation on parenthood and its implications in legal terms.

Presentations will address, among others, private international law issues, including The legal implications of “procreative tourism”: the private international law dimension of international surrogacy arrangements (Ornella Feraci, Univ. Florence), and  The best interests of the child as a tool for legislative (r)evolution: an Italian case-law perspective (Ester di Napoli, PhD Univ. Padova).

A draft programme is available here. For more information see here.

I have delayed reporting on the Hague Principles on choice of law in international commercial contract for exam reasons. The principles (and accompanying commentary) have not taken the form of a classic Hague convention, rather, it is hoped that they inspire practice. Bottom-up harmonisation, in other words. For the EU, the Rome I Regulation evidently already harmonises choice of law hence the principles must not be followed where Rome I applies. However in particular given the principles’ ambition to be applied by arbitral tribunals, they may have some effect in the EU, too.

I asked my students to compare the Principles with the Rome I Regulation. Such quick and dirty scan, without wishing to be complete, reveals the following: (I take a bullet-point approach such one might follow in an exam setting. = refers to similarities; ≠ to differences

• ≠ The Hague principles concern choice of law principles only. Rome I covers applicable law in the wider sense (it also determines applicable law if no choice of law has been made).
• ≠: The Principles apply to courts and arbitral tribunals. General consensus is that arbitral panels subject to the laws of an EU Member State as the lex curia are not bound by Rome I.
• ≠The Hague principles only apply B2B, not B2C. They deal with international ‘commercial’ contracts only. Famously Rome I includes and indeed pampers B2C contracts.
• Purely domestic contracts are covered by Rome I, with choice of law being corrected to a considerable degree. ≠ Hague principles: these do not cover purely domestic contracts because they are not ‘international’.
• = party autonomy and depecage are supported in both.
• = universal character: Parties may choose any law, they or the contract need not have any material link with that law.
• ≠ rules of law. Rome I probably allows choice of State law only (its recitals are inconclusive, as is its legislative history). Hague Principles: allows parties to opt for non-State law.
• Tacit choice of law is effectively dealt with the same in both.
• Scope of the chosen law: while more or less similar, one obvious ≠ is that the Hague Principles cover culpa in contrahendo. In the EU, this is subject to the Rome II Regulation.
• Article 11 of the Hague Principles allow for a wider remit for courts and tribunals to apply overriding mandatory law that is not that of the forum.
• Article 9(2): formal validity of the contract may be established by many a law that might have a bearing on it. Favor negoti, in other words: as in Rome I.

A fun exercise, all in all. I for one am curious how arbitral tribunals will approach the principles.

Geert.

Joanna Jemielniak, Legal Interpretation in International Commercial Arbitration, Ashgate Publishing, 2014, ISBN 9781409447191, pp. 278, GBP 63.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – This book fills a gap in legal academic study and practice in International Commercial Arbitration (ICA) by offering an in-depth analysis on legal discourse and interpretation. Written by a specialist in international business law, arbitration and legal theory, it examines the discursive framework of arbitral proceedings, through an exploration of the unique status of arbitration as a legal and semiotic phenomenon. Historical and contemporary aspects of legal discourse and interpretation are considered, as well as developments in the field of discourse analysis in ICA. A section is devoted to institutional and structural determinants of legal discourse in ICA in which ad hoc and institutional forms are examined. The book also deals with functional aspects of legal interpretation in arbitral discourse, focusing on interpretative standards, methods and considerations in decision-making in ICA.

Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili qui.

È disponibile il volume del 2015 del Czech Yearbook of International Law. Vi compaiono, tra gli altri, i seguenti scritti: Law applicable to international carriage: EU law and international treaties (Alexander J. Bělohlávek); The CMR Convention, Brussels I Regulation and ‘Empty International Competence’ (Luboš Kliment, Filip Plašil); Resolution of Disputes in the International River and Maritime Transport in Arbitration (Bohumil Poláček).

Ulteriori informazioni sul volume disponibili a questo indirizzo. Il sommario del volume è consultabile qui.

On 15 June 2015, the Council of the European Union adopted a decision authorising certain Member States to accept, in the interest of the European Union, the accession of Andorra to the 1980 Hague Convention on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction, and an analogous decision regarding the acceptance of the accession of Singapore to the same Convention (publication of both decisions in the Official Journal is pending).

The two decisions rest on Opinion 1/13 of 14 October 2014. In this Opinion, the ECJ — having regard to Regulation No 2201/2003 of 27 November 2003 concerning jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility (Brussels IIa) — stated that the declarations of acceptance under the Hague Child Abduction Convention fall within the exclusive external competence of the Union.

Before the ECJ rendered this Opinion, some Member States had already accepted the accession of Andorra and Singapore. Presumably, they did so on the assumption that the European Union was not vested with an exclusive competence in this respect and that, accordingly, each Member State was free to decide whether to become bound by the Convention vis-à-vis individual acceding third countries, as provided by Article 38(3) of the Convention itself (for an updated overview of the accessions to the Convention and the acceptances thereof, see this page in the website of the Hague Conference on Private International Law).

The two Council decisions of 15 June 2015 are addressed only to the Member States that have not already accepted the accession of Andorra and Singapore, respectively. In fact, the Council preferred not to question in light of Opinion 1/13 the legitimacy of ‘old’ declarations made by Member States, and noted, with pragmatism, that a decision regarding the acceptance of the two accessions was only needed with respect to the remaining Member States.

In two identical statements included in the minutes of the above Council decisions (see here and here), the European Commission regretted that the decisions “cover only the Member States which have not yet accepted Andorra and Singapore”, so that “the Member States which proceeded to accept third States’ accessions in the past are not covered by any authorisation by the Union, which is in principle necessary pursuant to Article 2(1) TFEU” (according to the latter provision, “when the Treaties confer on the Union exclusive competence in a specific area, only the Union may legislate and adopt legally binding acts, the Member States being able to do so themselves only if so empowered by the Union or for the implementation of Union acts”).

In its statements, the Commission also stressed “that any future acceptance by Member States of the accession of a third country must be covered by a prior authorisation”.

A conference organised by AIGA, the Italian Association of Young Lawyers, will take place on 2 July 2015 in Brussels, in the Paul-Henri Spaak building of the European Parliament, to discuss the legal aspects of the Digital Single Market (the creation of which is one of the ten priorities of the European Commission presided by Jean-Claude Juncker).

The conference, which is titled Building the legal infrastructure of the Digital Single Market, will consist of three sessions.

The first session, Setting the policy framework, will be chaired by Hans Schulte-Nölke of the University of Osnabrück. It will feature presentations by Gintare Surblyte of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition in Munich (Internet and Regulation: the debate on Net Neutrality) and Oreste Pollicino of the Bocconi University of Milan (The sense of the Court of Justice of the European Union for digital privacy: interpretation or manipulation?).

Michael Lehmann of the Max Planck Institute for Innovation and Competition will chair the second session, devoted to A European law for digital contents: the challenge of harmonisation. It will feature presentations by Johannes Druschel of the Ludwig Maximilian University of Munich (Digital contents under the European Sales Law) and Alberto De Franceschi of the University of Ferrara (The issue of digital contents after the Consumer Rights Directive – The ‘button solution’ and the right of withdrawal).

Under the title Managing legal diversity within the Digital Single Market, the third session, chaired by Francisco Garcimartín Alférez of the Universidad Autónoma of Madrid, will address some private international law issues relating to the functioning of the Digital Single Market. Presentations will be delivered by Lorna E. Gillies of the University of Leicester (Cross-border online digital service contracts: Which court decides ? What law applies?) and Pietro Franzina of the University of Ferrara (Localising digital torts: settled and open issues).

Admittance is free, but, for security reasons, those wishing to attend the conference must send an e-mail by Wednesday, 24 June 2015 to Mario Galluppi di Cirella, Vice-President of the AIGA Foundation, at mariodicirella@hotmail.com. The seating capacity of the conference room is limited. Successful applicants will be notified by 27 June 2015.

The poster of the conference may be downloaded here.