Agrégateur de flux

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Isidoro Antonio Calvo Vidal, El certificado sucesorio europeo, La Ley, 2015, ISBN 9788490204108, pp. 364, Euro 42,93.

[Dal sito dell’editore] A partir de la fecha de su aplicación plena, el 17 de agosto de 2015, el Reglamento (UE) nº 650/2012 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo de 4 de julio de 2012 relativo a la competencia, la ley aplicable, el reconocimiento y la ejecución de las resoluciones, a la aceptación y la ejecución de los documentos públicos en materia de sucesiones mortis causa y a la creación de un certificado sucesorio europeo, determina el nuevo marco de las sucesiones internacionales en la Unión Europea, constituyendo un hito de especial relieve en la construcción de la Europa de los ciudadanos. El Reglamento incide directamente en la aplicación del derecho de sucesiones en los Estados miembros, tanto a la hora de abordar una planificación sucesoria, a través del otorgamiento del testamento o de otra disposición mortis causa, como al tiempo de llevar a cabo el desenvolvimiento de una sucesión ya causada. En España supone además la incorporación de novedades tan importantes como la posibilidad de la elección de la ley aplicable a la sucesión o la fijación de la residencia habitual como punto de conexión subsidiario en orden a la determinación de la misma. Pero es el certificado sucesorio europeo, el nuevo «pasaporte» de los herederos en Europa, el que puede considerarse como uno de los logros más importantes del nuevo instrumento comunitario, al permitir a herederos, legatarios, ejecutores testamentarios o administradores de la herencia probar fácilmente su cualidad, así como ejercer los derechos o las facultades respectivas, en los Estados miembros. A partir de estas consideraciones, esta monografía ofrece al lector, desde la reflexión teórica y la visión práctica de su autor, un acercamiento a los principales elementos que van a regir el inmediato tratamiento de las sucesiones transfronterizas en la Unión Europea.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

À la suite de la proposition de Bruxelles de mettre en place un mécanisme de relocalisation temporaire des demandeurs d’asile, les ministres de l’intérieur français et allemand prennent position sur ce sujet dans un communiqué commun (sur ce projet, V. Dalloz actualité, 29 mai 2015, C. Fleuriot ).

en lire plus

La Cour de cassation a condamné un avocat aux Conseils à payer à l’un de ses clients la somme de 59 000 € pour indemniser le préjudice de perte de chance de voir l’arrêt rejetant sa demande censuré par la Haute juridiction.

en lire plus

Entreprise en difficulté

Entreprise en difficulté

Tribunal de grande instance de Périgueux, Tribunal correctionnel, 13 mai 2015

Tribunal de grande instance de Perpignan, Tribunal correctionnel, 27 mai 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, 12 décembre 2014

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 17e chambre correctionnelle, 22 mai 2015

Cour d'appel de Nancy, 13 mai 2015

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel

On 8 and 9 October 2015, the Academy of European Law (ERA) will host a conference entitled How to Handle International Commercial Cases.

The conference aims to cast light on the latest developments regarding commercial dispute resolution. It will focus on the recent case law in the area of European civil procedure and on the forthcoming changes in the field of EU private international law. This last topic will be devoted, in particular, to the imminent entry into force of the Hague Convention of 30 June 2005 on Choice of Court Agreements, the recast of the EU Insolvency Regulation, the revision of the European Small Claims Procedure, and Regulation No 655/2014 establishing a European Account Preservation Order procedure.

Further information on the conference available here.

I have reported elsewhere (In Dutch – I am hoping for some time at some point to write something similar in English; see in particular para 23) on the fact that the conjunctive ‘or’ has been dropped in all language versions of Article 19 of the Brussels I recast:

The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement:

• which is entered into after the dispute has arisen;
• which allows the consumer to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section; or
• which is entered into by the consumer and the other party to the contract, both of whom are at the time of conclusion of the contract domiciled or habitually resident in the same Member State, and which confers jurisdiction on the courts of that Member State, provided that such an agreement is not contrary to the law of that Member State.

This contrast with the similar proviso on choice of court in employment contracts, Article 23:

The provisions of this Section may be departed from only by an agreement:

• which is entered into after the dispute has arisen; or
• which allows the employee to bring proceedings in courts other than those indicated in this Section.

I have suggested, with others, that much as I do not understand why the conjunctive has been dropped, its deletion, combined with its being kept in Article 23, means that for consumer contracts, choice of court pre the dispute are now simply impossible under the Regulation, while being maintained for employment contracts. I was also puzzled as to why such an important change was not discussed at all in the run-up to the recast.

A little bird at the European Commission (one high up the conflicts tree) now tells me that what has happened in reality, is quite different. Reportedly the ‘juristes-linguistes’ took it upon them to correct an apparent linguistic mistake in the previous version of the Regulation (indeed one going back to the Brussels Convention): there ought not to be a conjunctive when listing more than one, non-cumulative alternative. That would also explain the difference with Article 23, where there are only 2 alternatives.

This clears up the legislative intent. It does not to me, at least, clear up the linguistic confusion. We may have been grammatically wrong under the previous format (I cannot judge the correctness of that in all these language versions). However at least we were legally certain. Being fully respectful of grammatical correctness myself (punctuation jokes never fail to amuse me), I am not sure which one to prefer in this instance.

Geert.