Agrégateur de flux

Etranger

Régimes matrimoniaux

Affaire AZF

La 31e chambre du tribunal correctionnel de Paris a condamné les six prévenus du procès France Télécom, vendredi 20 décembre, pour harcèlement moral et complicité de ce délit, reconnaissant un harcèlement moral institutionnel exercé à l’encontre des employés de France Télécom.

en lire plus

Puigdemont i Casamajó et Comín i Oliveres / Parlement
Droit institutionnel
Ce texte n'est disponible qu'en espagnol

With the festive season approaching, I am happy to give the floor to María Barral Martínez, currently trainee at the chambers of Advocate General Mr Manuel Campos Sánchez-Bordona for her update on Supreme et al v Shape.

On 10 December, the Den Bosch Court of Appeal delivered its judgment on the main proceedings of the Supreme et al. v SHAPE case. The case concerns a contractual dispute between Supreme (a supplier of fuels) and SHAPE (the military headquarters of NATO). Supreme signed several agreements (so-called “BOA agreements”) to supply fuels to SHAPE in the context of a military operation in Afghanistan-ISAF-, mandated by the UNSC. Supreme also signed an escrow agreement with JFCB (Allied Joint Force Command Brunssum, a military headquarters subject to SHAPE´s authority) to cover mutual potential payments after the mission/contract termination. In December 2015, Supreme instituted proceedings in the Netherlands against Shape/JFCB requesting the payment of certain costs. Moreover, Supreme sought, in the context of a second procedure, to levy an interim garnishee order targeting the escrow account in Belgium. The latter proceedings -currently before the Dutch Supreme Court- triggered a reference for a preliminary ruling (case C-186/19 « Supreme Site Services»)  as already commented in an earlier post, related to the Brussels I bis Regulation.

In the judgment on the merits, the Appellate Court addressed the Brussels I bis Regulation as well, albeit briefly. The Appellate Court asked parties whether the reference to the CJEU impacts the proceedings on the merits. Both parties were of the opinion that it was not the case. Moreover, the Court itself considered that since Shape and JFCB only invoked in their defence immunity of jurisdiction the parties had tacitly accepted the Dutch court’s jurisdiction.

In regards to the question of immunity of jurisdiction, the Dutch Appellate Court granted immunity of jurisdiction to Shape and JFCB on the basis of customary international law. It found it was inconclusive that immunity of jurisdiction in respect of Shape and JFCB flows from the provisions of the Protocol on the Status of International Military Headquarters Set up Pursuant to the North Atlantic Treaty (Paris Protocol 1952), or the Agreement on the Status of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (Ottawa’s Agreement).

On the role of article 6 ECHR, contrary to what the District Court ruled on the judgment under appeal, the Court of Appeal held that Supreme had a reasonable dispute settlement mechanism available to it to submit its claims. Article 6.1 ECHR therefore would not be breached.  It argued that the judge must perform a case by case analysis in order to determine whether the international organisation offers reasonable alternative means to protect the rights enshrined under article 6.1 ECHR, and if needed set aside the immunity of jurisdiction of the international organisation. The Court concluded that the Release of Funds Working Group, which was agreed by the parties to settle any possible contractual differences, can be considered, under Dutch law, as a reasonable dispute settlement mechanism and therefore, the Court has no jurisdiction.

At the public hearing in C-186/19 held in Luxembourg on 12 December, the CJEU could not hide its surprise when told by the parties that the Dutch Appellate Court had granted immunity of jurisdiction to Shape and JCFB. The judges and AG wondered whether a reply to the preliminary reference would still be of any use. One should take into account that the main point at the hearing was whether the “civil or commercial” nature of the proceedings for interim measures should be assessed in the light of the proceedings on the merits (to which interim measures are ancillary, or whether the analysis should solely address the interim relief measures themselves.

Maria.

 

 

 

Par son arrêt du 5 décembre 2019, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se penche sur la détermination du juge compétent pour connaître d’une action en paiement de ses cotisations ordinales dirigée contre un avocat inscrit auprès d’un ordre des avocats en Belgique mais qui réside en France.

en lire plus

Expropriation pour cause d'utilité publique

CEDH - Servitude

Usufruit - Bail commercial

Facebook Ireland et Schrems
Rapprochement des législations
Selon l’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe, la décision 2010/87/UE de la Commission relative aux clauses contractuelles types pour le transfert de données à caractère personnel vers des sous-traitants établis dans des pays tiers est valide

Airbnb Ireland
Liberté d'établissement
La France ne peut exiger d’Airbnb qu’elle dispose d’une carte professionnelle d’agent immobilier, faute d’avoir notifié cette exigence à la Commission conformément à la directive sur le commerce électronique

Nederlands Uitgeversverbond et Groep Algemene Uitgevers
Liberté d'établissement
La vente de livres électroniques d’occasion par le biais d’un site Internet constitue une communication au public soumise à l’autorisation de l’auteur

Deutsche Umwelthilfe
COAD
Une contrainte par corps ne peut être prononcée contre des responsables du Land de Bavière en vue de leur enjoindre d’adopter des mesures d’assainissement de l’air ambiant à Munich (telles qu’une interdiction de circulation de certains véhicules diesel) que s’il existe à cette fin une base légale nationale suffisamment accessible, précise et prévisible dans son application et si cette contrainte est proportionnée

Niki Luftfahrt
Transport
Une compagnie aérienne est responsable des dommages causés par un gobelet de café chaud qui se renverse

Junqueras Vies
Privilèges et immunités
Une personne élue au Parlement européen acquiert la qualité de membre de cette institution dès la proclamation officielle des résultats et bénéficie à compter de ce moment des immunités attachées à cette qualité

Puppinck e.a. / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Selon la Cour, le Tribunal n’a pas commis d’erreur en confirmant la décision de la Commission de ne pas soumettre de proposition législative dans le cadre de l’initiative citoyenne européenne « Un de nous »

written by Veronica Ruiz Abou-Nigm

ASADIP (American Association of Private International Law)

13th Annual Conference – Punta del Este, URUGUAY, 21-22 November 2019

TRANSNATIONAL EFFECTIVENESS OF LAW: Recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments, arbitral awards and other acts

On 21 and 22 November 2019, the 13thASADIP Annual Conference took place in Punta del Este (Uruguay) with the participation of more than 30 international speakers from several jurisdictions and over 130 attendees, mostly from the Latin American region, but also from North America and Europe. The theme of the conference was the Transnational Effectiveness of Law:Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Arbitral Awards and other Acts;

The then President of ASADIP, Eduardo Vescovi (Uruguay), delivered the welcome speech followed by the inaugural conference on the “Pro-effectiveness principle and transnational access to justice” by Didier Opertti Badán (Uruguay). Following from there, the conference included eight panels (each including several short presentations), a round-table debate (with several participant speakers), and four keynotes (special conferences). Presentations in these various formats were followed by lively discussions with the audience. 

In its thirteenth iteration, the ASADIP annual conference brought together an enthusiastic group of established private international law scholars and practitioners. There were also specific activities catered for the younger generation of scholars, practitioners and research students: these were the ASADIP-CLAEH (Young ASADIP) Conference that took place at the University CLAEH of Punta del Este, on 20thNovember in the afternoon, including panel presentations and a debate; and, as it has been happening for many years at the ASADIP annual conference, a poster contest that took place on the second day of the conference. Several young researchers from Peru, Argentina, Brazil, and France presented their research in front of the evaluation committee, with three of them being awarded prices. For the full list of all the activities, including the specific topics of the panels and keynote addresses, and the names and profiles of all the international speakers and research students presenting, see the full report (in Spanish) here.

Furthermore, on 23 November 2019 the annual ASADIP General Assembly was held, during which the ASADIP Council for the period 2019-2022 was elected. For further information on the new Council members see further here. 

The detail:

First Panel: “Circulation of public documents globally”. Speakers: Paula María All (Argentina), Carmen González (Uruguay), Renata Alvares Gaspar (Brazil) and José Manuel Canelas (Bolivia), mooderated by Eduardo Vescovi (Uruguay).

Second Panel: “International cooperation in transnational family situations”. Speakers: Nieve Rubaja (Argentina), Luciana B. Scotti (Argentina) and Daniel Trecca (Uruguay), moderated by Elizabeth Villalta Vizcarra (El Salvador).

Third Panel: “Transnational Efficacy of Foreign Judgments – Flexibilization of Requirements” Speakers: Claudia Madrid Martínez (Colombia), Taydit Peña Lorenzo (Cuba), Carolina D. Iud (Argentina) and Eduardo Tellechea (Uruguay), moderated Adriana Fernández (Uruguay).

These morning panels were followed by the first Keynote Speech: “New Hague Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters ”by João Ribeiro-Bidaoui (HCCH).

Fourth Panel: “The Hague Convention on Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments and its impact on Latin American countries”. Speakers: Marcos Dotta (Uruguay), Verónica Ruiz Abou-Nigm (UK), Fabricio Bertini Pasquot Polido (Brazil) and Juan Carlos Guerrero (Mexico), moderated by Inez Lopes (Brazil).

Fifth Panel: The last Panel of the first day on “Transnational Effectiveness of Provisional Measures” was moderated by Sebastián Paredes (Argentina), presenting on the subject Cecilia Fresnedo de Aguirre (Uruguay), Eugenio Hernández-Bretón (Venezuela) andThiago Paluma (Brasil).

The second day of the Conference began with the Sixth Panel moderated by Mercedes Albornoz (Mexico). Speakers: Gonzalo Lorenzo Idiarte (Uruguay), María Blanca Noodt Taquela (Argentina) and Roberto Ruiz Díaz Labrano (Paraguay) reflected around the question of “Is it desirable to abolish the exequatur? 

After that, the second keynote speech on the “New OAS Guide on the Law Applicable to International Commercial Contracts in the Americas” was delivered by the Rapporteur of the Guide, José A. Moreno Rodríguez (Paraguay) and Jeannette Tramhel (OAS).

Panel Seven: “Transnational Efficacy of Foreign Arbitral Awards -Impact of the new international arbitration laws in the Río de la Plata”. Speakers: Paul F. Arrighi (Uruguay), María Laura Capalbo (Uruguay), Soledad Díaz (Uruguay), Alejandro Menicocci (Argentina), Guillermo Argerich (Argentina) and Juan Jorge (Argentina), moderated by Juan José Cerdeira (Argentina).

Debate: “Execution of foreign arbitral awards – something to change?”. Participants: Francisco A. Amallo (Argentina), João Bosco Lee (Brazil), Diana Giraldo Montoya (Colombia), Francisco Grob (ICSID) and Jaime Vintimilla (Ecuador), being the moderator María Laura Capalbo (Uruguay).

The third keynote speech on the “New Singapore Convention and the execution of international agreements resulting from cross-border mediation ” was delivered by Luis Ernesto Rodríguez Carrera (Venezuela) and María Verónica Duarte (Uruguay).

Panel Eight: “The transnational effectiveness of arbitral awards versus that of foreign judgments”. Speakers: María Susana Najurieta (Argentina), Julio César Rivera (Argentina), Carlos Odriozola (Mexico) and María Macarena Fariña (Uruguay), moderated by Nicolás Etcheverry (Uruguay).

The conference closed with a keynote speech from Diego P. Fernández Arroyo (France) on the “Role of Private International Law in the Global Era”.