Liquidation judiciaire
Contrat de travail - rupture
Entreprise en difficulté
On May 4th, 2021, the European Commission issued a Communication offering its Assessment on the application of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to accede to the 2007 Lugano Convention.
The Communication offers the Commission’s analysis on the application and explains why it considers that the EU should not give its consent to the accession of the United Kingdom to the Lugano Convention.
Nature of the Lugano ConventionThe Communication explains that the Lugano Convention represents an essential feature of a common area of justice and is a flanking measure for the EU’s economic relations with the EFTA/EEA countries. Thus, the Lugano Convention supports the EU’s relationship with third countries which have a particularly close regulatory integration with the EU, including by aligning with (parts of) the EU acquis. Though the Convention is, in principle, open to accession of “any other State” upon invitation from the Depositary upon unanimous agreement of the Contracting Parties, it is not the appropriate general framework for judicial cooperation with any given third country. The Convention is based on a high level of mutual trust among the Contracting Parties and represents an essential feature of a common area of justice commensurate to the high degree of economic interconnection based on the applicability of the four freedoms.
International framework for the EU’s civil justice cooperation with third countriesAs a consequence, the European Commission argues that the appropriate framework for cooperation with third countries in the field of civil judicial cooperation is provided by the multilateral Hague Conventions, i.e. the 2005 Hague Choice of Court Convention and the 2019 Hague Judgments Convention.
ConclusionThe Commission concludes:
In view of the above, the Commission takes the view that the European Union should not give its consent to the accession of the United Kingdom to the 2007 Lugano Convention. For the European Union, the Lugano Convention is a flanking measure of the internal market and relates to the EU-EFTA/EEA context. In relation to all other third countries the consistent policy of the European Union is to promote cooperation within the framework of the multilateral Hague Conventions. The United Kingdom is a third country without a special link to the internal market. Therefore, there is no reason for the European Union to depart from its general approach in relation to the United Kingdom. Consequently, the Hague Conventions should provide the framework for future cooperation between the European Union and the United Kingdom in the field of civil judicial cooperation.
The Commission then advises:
Stakeholders concerned, and in particular practitioners engaged in cross-border contractual matters involving the European Union, should take this into account when making a choice of international jurisdiction.
Arthur Poon recently published an article with International and Comparative Law Quarterly titled: “Determining the Place of Performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Recast.”
The abstract reads as follows:
“This article calls for a reassessment of the methodology in determining the place of contractual performance under Article 7(1) of the Brussels I Regulation Recast. The first part of the article deals with Article 7(1)(a). It argues that in light of the adoption of autonomous linking factors under Article 7(1)(b), more types of contracts presently not covered within the ambits of Article 7(1)(b) should centralise jurisdiction at the places of performance of their characteristic obligations. The second part of the article considers the way Article 7(1) operates when there are multiple places of performance under the contract. The test devised by the Court of Justice of the European Union in this regard is not only difficult to apply, but the application of the test also often does not guarantee a close connection between the claim and the court taking jurisdiction. This article argues that when a claim is made in respect of a contractual obligation to be performed in more than one Member State, Article 4 should be applied instead of Article 7(1).”
The new issue of the AJ Contrat (12/2020) offers a series of articles (in French) compiled by Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Nîmes, France), concerning the CISG on the occasion of its 40th anniversary.
The dossier contains the following articles:
The challenge of uniform interpretation, by Claude Witz (Saarland University)
The CISG’s articulation with the European Union Law, by Cyril Nourissat (University of Lyon 3)
Back on the parties’ silence about the GISG’s application, by Gustavo Cerqueira (University of Nîmes) and Nicolas Nord (University of Strasbourg)
The Vienna Convention and the action directe: back on dangerous liaisons, by Etienne Farnoux (University of Strasbourg)
The links between the foreclosure period and the deadline prescription period (about CISG’s Article 39), by Marc Mignot (University of Strasbourg)
The issue of interest rates on arrears, by Franco Ferrari (New York University)
For a reinterpretation of the concept of impediment to perform, by Ludovic Pailler (University of Lyon 3)
The full table of contents is available here.
EFFORTS (Towards more EFfective enFORcemenT of claimS in civil and commercial matters within the EU) is an EU-funded Project conducted by the University of Milan (coord.), the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, the University of Heidelberg, the Free University of Brussels, the University of Zagreb, and the University of Vilnius.
The EFFORTS Project tackles, notably, the Brussels Ibis Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order, and the European Account Preservation Order. By investigating the implementation of these Regulations in the national procedural law of, respectively, Belgium, Croatia, France, Germany, Italy, Lithuania, and Luxembourg, the Project aims at enhancing the enforcement of claims through more efficient procedures, case management, and cooperation in cross-border disputes.
The second EFFORTS Newsletter has just been released, giving access to up-to-date information about the Project, save-the-dates on forthcoming events, conferences and webinars, and news from the area of international and comparative civil procedural law.
Regular updates are also available via the Project’s LinkedIn and Facebook pages.
Project JUST-JCOO-AG-2019-881802
With financial support from the Civil Justice Programme of the European Union
The European Group of Private International Law (EGPIL-GEDIP) has published the minutes (in French) of its 2020 Meeting.
The topics discussed during the meeting included a proposal for a regulation concerning the applicable law to in rem rights, the codification of the general part of EU private international law and the accession of the European Union to the Hague Judgments Convention.
The EGPIL has also published separately a draft proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to rights in rem in tangible assets and Observations on the possible accession of the European Union to the Hague Convention of 2 July 2019 on the Recognition of Foreign Judgments.
Coming up tomorrow – Book Launch: Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts – 4 May 2021
The global PIL community is invited to celebrate the launch of the book “Choice of Law in International Commercial Contracts” (Oxford University Press, 2021). This study provides a definitive reference guide to the key choice of law principles on international contracts, including 60 national and regional reports written by experts from all parts of the world, and a dedicated commentary on the Hague Principles as applied to international commercial arbitration.
When: May 4, 2021 02:00 PM CEST
Where: Online (Zoom-Webinar)
Register here:
https://unilu.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_ivzYmgFQQkSdUKZCEDRriQ
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the webinar. The event will also be live streamed via YouTube; the link will be posted five minutes before the start time here.
The programme reads as follows:
14:00-14:10 – Welcome and acknowledgments | Daniel Girsberger
14:10-14:35 – Overview of the process | Daniel Girsberger and Marta Pertegás
14:35-15:00 – General Comparative Report, with a focus on Art. 3 | Thomas Kadner Graziano
15:00-15:10 – Further general matters | Jan L Neels
15:10-15:15 – Publisher’s address | Andrew Dickinson
15:15-15:20 – Regional perspective: Africa | Jan L Neels and Eesa A Fredericks
15:20-15:30 – Regional perspective: Asia | Yuko Nishitani and Béligh Elbalti
15:30-15:35 – Regional perspective: Australasia | Brooke Marshall
15:35-15:40 – Regional perspective: Europe | Thomas Kadner Graziano
15:40-15:50 – Regional perspective: Latin America | José A Moreno Rodríguez and Lauro Gama
15:50-15:55 – Regional perspective: North America | Geneviève Saumier
15:55-16:05 – HCCH, UNCITRAL and UNIDROIT perspectives | João Ribeiro-Bidaoui, Luca Castellani, and Anna Veneziano
16:05-16:15 – Future plans and concluding remarks | Agatha Brandão and Daniel Girsberger
16:15-16:45 – Q&A
More information about the book:
A 30% discount code will be available for all attendees.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer