Agrégateur de flux

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Papeete, 18 mai 2014

Cour d'appel de Paris, 6 mai 2015

« Afin de remédier à la situation en Méditerranée », la Commission européenne proposera, d’ici fin mai, un mécanisme de relocalisation temporaire des demandeurs d’asile « qui ont manifestement besoin d’une protection internationale ». Une annonce faite le 13 mai 2015, dans le cadre de la présentation de son agenda européen en matière de migration.

en lire plus

Cour d'appel de Paris, 16 avril 2015

Juridiction de proximité de Palaiseau, 12 mai 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 26 janvier 2015

Conseil de prud'hommes de Paris, 30 avril 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, 15 septembre 2014

Arbitrage

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

The ECJ today has held, in a matter of factly manner (I had suspected the Court would be brief), that the enforcement of arbitral awards falls outside the Brussels I-Regulation, where that enforcement by the court of that State, effectively prohibits the party concerned from taking the case to a court in that very Member State. Rich was the main formula referred to, among the various precedents: ‘reference must be made solely to the subject-matter of the dispute‘ to assess the scope of Brussels I’s arbitral exclusion.

Importantly, West Tankers was distinguished particularly on the basis that in the facts at issue, there was no competing court in another Member State, hence no scope for the principle of mutual trust to be violated. The AG’s review of the impact of the recitals newly added by the Brussels I recast, was not addressed at all by the Court.

The judgment does not solve all outstanding issues, however. Firstly, the Court’s reasoning seems to suggest that where competition with a court in another Member State is at issue, effet utile of the Brussels I Regulation might take the upper hand, as it did in West Tankers. Recognition of the award arguably in such case would amount to anti-suit. Further, the Court (this was a Grand Chamber judgment) points out that the award still has to go through the national court’s standard recognition and enforcement process, outside the framework of Title III of the Regulation, instead governed by national residual law as well as the New York Convention. Both of these (including through ordre public) might still offer quite a remit for the Lithuanian courts to refuse recognition.

Geert.