Agrégateur de flux

Dans cette cassation relative à la saisie d’un immeuble d’habitation, la chambre criminelle réaffirme son attachement au principe du contradictoire et au droit à un procès équitable. Elle considère en effet que la chambre de l’instruction saisie d’un recours formé contre une ordonnance de saisie spéciale doit s’assurer que les pièces sur lesquelles elle se fonde ont été communiquées à la partie appelante.

en lire plus

Written by Mayela Celis

The sixth meeting of the Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy took place early November in The Hague, the Netherlands, and focused on proposing provisions for developing two instruments:

• a general private international law instrument on the recognition of foreign judicial decisions on legal parentage; and
• a separate protocol on the recognition of foreign judicial decisions on legal parentage rendered as a result of an international surrogacy arrangement.

As indicated in the HCCH news item, the Experts’ Group also discussed the feasibility of making provisions in relation to applicable law rules and public documents.

At the outset, experts underlined “the pressing need for common internationally-agreed solutions to avoid limping legal parentage. The aim of any future instrument would be to provide predictability, certainty and continuity of legal parentage in international situations for all individual concerned, taking into account their rights, the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child and in particular the best interests of the child.”

The Group studied both indirect grounds of jurisdiction (such as the child’s habitual residence) and grounds for refusal of recognition (such as public policy and providing the child with an opportunity to be heard, which seems to me of paramount importance). Other Private International Law techniques were also studied such as applicable law, a presumption of validity of legal parentage recorded in a public instrument issued by a designated competent authority, and direct grounds of jurisdiction.

In particular, to facilitate the recognition of foreign judgments on legal parentage in international surrogacy arrangements, “the Group discussed the possibility of certification (for example, by way of a model form) to verify that conditions under the Protocol have been met.” There was no consensus on who should provide this certification in the State of origin.

Given the controversial nature of international surrogacy arrangements, the Group stressed that any future protocol on this issue should not be understood as supporting or opposing surrogacy. The question of course remains whether States would be willing to join such an instrument and whether the international act of consenting to be bound by such an instrument on the international plane would signal a positive or negative approach to surrogacy arrangements by a specific State (and possibly result in a potential imbalance between national and international surrogacy arrangements i.e. the former being refused effect and the latter being recognised). The issue of domestic surrogacy arrangements still needs to be explored further by the Group (see para No 26 of the Report).

Moreover, an important feature of the work is the future relationship between the two draft instruments. In this regard, the Group noted that “In principle, the Group favoured an approach whereby States could choose to become a party to both instruments or only one of them. Some Experts proposed that consideration be given to possible mechanisms to serve as a bridge between the two instruments. Experts agreed that, at this time, the Group should continue its work by considering the draft instruments in parallel.”

The Group will continue its work on these issues and will report to the governance body of the Hague Conference (HCCH) in March 2022 so that this body can make a final decision on whether to proceed with this project.

The Report of the Experts’ Group is available here.

The HCCH news item is available here.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Nîmes, 6ème chambre, 17 janvier 2019

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Montpellier, 31 janvier 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 10, 17 décembre 2018

Pourvoi c/ chambre de l'instruction de la Cour d'appel de Bourges, 22 août 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Chambéry, chambre sociale, 30 avril 2019

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Amiens, chambre correctionnelle, 20 mai 2019

Santé publique

Cour d'assise

Terrorisme

Stupéfiants - Saisie

Entreprises en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005)

Servitude