Agrégateur de flux

Ryanair et Malta Air / Commission
Aide d'État
Aides d’État dans le contexte de la pandémie de Covid-19 : le Tribunal annule les décisions de la Commission approuvant les aides financières de la France en faveur d’Air France et d’Air France-KLM

EVH / Commission
Concurrence
Les recours de onze régies municipales allemandes contre le feu vert de la Commission pour l’acquisition des activités de distribution et de commerce de détail d’énergie ainsi que de certains actifs de production d’innogy par E.ON sont rejetés

Banca Popolare di Bari / Commission
L’Union ne doit pas réparer le préjudice prétendument subi par Banca Popolare di Bari du fait d’une décision de la Commission sur la mesure d’aide italienne en faveur de Banca Tercas

Abramovich / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Guerre en Ukraine : le Tribunal de l’Union européenne rejette le recours de M. Roman Arkadyevich Abramovich et confirme ainsi les mesures restrictives prises à son égard

Islentyeva / Conseil
Relations extérieures
Les mesures restrictives contre la Russie n’interdisent en principe pas à un citoyen russe détenteur d’une licence privée de piloter un avion dans l’Union européenne

The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) held in a judgment of 26 October 2023 (Application no. 32662/20) that a Hungarian child abduction procedure under the 1980 Hague Child Abduction Convention (1980 Hague Convention) was not compatible with the family rights set out in Article 8 of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). The Court reiterated that national return procedures should be managed in such a way as to ensure that a swift return of the child is possible, with both parents being granted contact with the child as the procedure unfolds.

Background

A couple consisting of a Spanish father and a Hungarian mother had two children. One was born in Hungary in 2013 and one was born in Spain in 2015. After a family holiday to a third country in January 2017, the father returned alone to Spain, whereas the mother and children went to Hungary. While in Hungary, the mother told the father that she had decided to settle permanently in Hungary with the children.

In February 2017, the father filed an application for the return of the children to Spain based on the 1980 Hague Convention. Courts in three instances, including the Hungarian Supreme Court, held that the father was right and that the children should return to Spain. However, in February 2018, the Hungarian Constitutional Court suspended the enforcement of the return of the children. In a decision given in November 2018, the enforcement was cancelled by the Constitutional Court, which held that the mother’s right to a fair trial had been violated, as the children’s interests had not been considered.

After the ruling of the Constitutional Court, the return order was again a matter for the Hungarian courts. This time, a psychological evaluation of the children was presented as evidence. Again, the Hungarian courts in three instances held that the children should return to Spain. The Constitutional Court was still not satisfied and quashed this return order as well. A third round of procedures for the same return was initiated in the district court in 2020. Shortly before that, Hungarian courts recognized a Spanish judgment giving the father custody of the children under Regulation (EU) No 2201/2003 (Brussels II bis).

During the almost four-year procedure, the father had applied to see his children on numerous occasions, but Hungarian authorities permitted only twelve encounters. Ultimately, during a parental visit in 2020, the father took the children back to Spain.

At the ECtHR in Strasbourg, the father complained about the Hungarian procedure. He claimed that the return procedure had violated his family rights under Article 8 of the ECHR, as the application of the Hague Convention was wrongful, both in that he had not been granted parental contact during the procedure and in the Hungarian non-enforcement of the Spanish decisions.

Judgment

The ECtHR held initially in its judgment that a State respondent to an international child abduction has family rights obligations towards the parent seeking the return of the child. That State must, inter alia, examine applications under the 1980 Hague Convention “with a view to ensuring […] prompt reunion.”

In this regard, the ECtHR held that the Hungarian procedure had been too slow, lasting nearly four years. Specifically, the Court noted that if Hungarian authorities found it necessary to consider psychological expertise in return matters, they should have organised the procedure in such a way that the expertise in question could be obtained without undue delays.

Lastly, the Court also held that the Hungarian authorities had not taken any measures to enforce the Spanish court decisions on custody rights.

Therefore, the Court held that Hungary had violated the father’s family rights under Article 8.

Comment

The judgment of the ECtHR comes as no surprise in that it emphasizes that the sturdy principle of prompt return under the 1980 Hague Convention is protected also under Article 8 of the ECHR.

One must remember that the passage of time in child abduction cases will always favor the abducting parent. Eventually, it will not be in the best interest of the child to be returned to a parent with whom it no longer has any relationship. After all, the 1980 Hague Convention is in place to avoid that an abductor is rewarded with custody. From a private international law perspective, custody rights must be dealt with separately, in “normal” custody procedures.

The New Zealand Court of Appeal has just released a judgment on the cross-border application of New Zealand consumer and fair trading legislation (Body Corporate Number DPS 91535 v 3A Composites GmbH [2023] NZCA 647). The Court held that local consumer legislation – in the form of the Consumer Guarantees Act 1993 (CGA) – applies to foreign manufacturers. It also clarified that fair trading legislation – in the form of the Fair Trading Act 1986 (FTA) – applies to representations made to recipients in New Zealand. The decision is of particular interest to New Zealand consumers and manufacturers of goods that are supplied in New Zealand, as well as traders advertising their products to New Zealanders. More generally, the judgment provides a useful analysis of the interrelationship between statutory interpretation and choice of law, and lends weight to the proposition that product liability is properly governed by the law of the place of supply (or injury).

 

 Facts

The defendant, 3A Composites GmbH (3AC), was a German manufacturer of a cladding product installed on the plaintiffs’ buildings. The plaintiffs alleged that the product was highly flammable because it contained aluminium composite panels with a polyethylene core. Panels of this kind were the main reason why the fire at Grenfell Tower in London had spread so rapidly. The plaintiffs brought proceedings against 3AC, as well as the importers and distributors of the cladding in New Zealand. They alleged negligence, breach of s 6 of the CGA and breaches of the FTA. In response, 3AC protested the New Zealand court’s jurisdiction.

 

The High Court

The High Court upheld 3AC’s protest in relation to the CGA and FTA causes of action, on the basis that they fell outside of the territorial scope of the Acts: Body Corporate Number DP 91535 v 3A Composites GmbH [2022] NZHC 985, [2022] NZCCLR 4.

In relation to the CGA, the plaintiffs claimed that 3AC’s cladding was not of acceptable quality in accordance with the statutory guarantees in the CGA. Section 6 of the CGA provides for a right of redress against a manufacturer where goods supplied to a consumer are not of acceptable quality. The Court held that the Act did not apply to 3AC because it was a foreign manufacturer.

Referring to the Supreme Court’s decision in Poynter v Commerce Commission [2010] NZSC 38, [2010] 3 NZLR 300, the Court concluded that there was “neither express language nor any necessary implication which would lead the Court to interpret the CGA as being intended to have extraterritorial reach” (at [45]). The CGA therefore did not apply to an overseas manufacturer like 3AC that did not have a presence in New Zealand (see [38]-[47]).  The Court pointed to the definition of the term “manufacturer” in s 2 of the Act, which includes “a person that imports or distributes” goods that are manufactured outside New Zealand where the foreign manufacturer does not have an ordinary place of business in New Zealand. According to the Court, the clear inference to be drawn from this definition was that the Act did not have extraterritorial effect, because otherwise there would be no need to impose the obligations of the manufacturer’s statutory guarantee upon a New Zealand-based importer of goods (at [42]-[44]).

In relation to the FTA, the plaintiffs argued that 3AC had engaged in misleading or deceptive conduct by making available promotional material on their website that was intended to have global reach and that specifically contemplated New Zealand consumers (at [107]), and by authorising publication of promotional and technical information through their exclusive distributor in New Zealand (at [108]).

The Court held that the Act did not apply to 3AC’s allegedly misleading or deceptive conduct. It referred to s 3(1), headed “application of Act to conduct outside New Zealand”. The section extends the Act to conduct outside New Zealand by any person carrying on business in New Zealand to the extent that such conduct relates to the supply of goods in New Zealand. It was clear that 3AC had never engaged in carrying on business in New Zealand (at [117]). Moreover, there was no evidence to show that 3AC had made any representations to the plaintiffs relating to supply of their product in New Zealand (at [120]).

 

The Court of Appeal

The Court of Appeal, in a judgment by Goddard J, disagreed with the High Court’s conclusion that the claims fell outside of the territorial scope of the Acts. In relation to the CGA, it held that the Act applies “to an overseas manufacturer of goods that are supplied in New Zealand” (at [61]). This interpretation was “consistent with [the] text and purpose [of the Act]”, with “broader principles of private international law” and “with the approach adopted by the Australian courts to corresponding legislation” (at [61]). The relevant “territorial connecting factor”, or “hinge”, was the supply of goods in New Zealand (at [64], [65]).

As a matter of statutory interpretation, the Court of Appeal considered that “[o]n its face the Act applies, and there is no good reason to read it more narrowly” (at [76]). The concept of extraterritoriality was irrelevant in this context (at [70]). In particular, it was inaccurate “to describe the availability of relief in respect of a supply of goods to a consumer in New Zealand against a person outside New Zealand as an ‘extraterritorial’ application of the Act” (at [64]). The Act imposed strict liability, in relation to the products supplied in New Zealand to New Zealand consumers, and did not depend on the conduct of the supplier or manufacturer in New Zealand (at [71]).

In relation to the definition of “manufacturer”, the Court accepted that its purpose was to provide a New Zealand consumer with the option of seeking redress against an importer or distributor of goods manufactured outside New Zealand, in light of the potential difficulties faced by a consumer when suing an overseas manufacturer (at [66]). However, this did not mean that the manufacturer should be excused from liability (at [67]). The Act essentially provided for concurrent liability on the part of the overseas manufacturer and the New Zealand-based importer or distributor (at [69]), which was consistent “with the focus of the legislation on providing meaningful remedies to consumers of goods supplied in New Zealand” (at [69]). This approach was consistent with Australian authority (at [72]).

The application of “established private international law choice of law principles” led to the same result (at [77]). For claims in tort in relation to goods that have caused personal injury, the relevant choice of law rules favoured application of the law of the place of injury. Applying the law of the place of manufacture “would produce the unsatisfactory result of different products on the same shelf” being governed by different liability regimes (at [77], referring to McGougan v DePuy International Ltd [2018] NZCA 91, [2018] 2 NZLR 916 at [59]). There was “broad support for a similar approach to product liability claims (at [77]). Thus, there was “a strong argument that the applicable law, where a consumer brings a product liability claim in respect of goods supplied in New Zealand, is New Zealand law” (at [78]), which included the Consumer Guarantees Act.

The Court left open the question whether a different approach might apply where an overseas manufacturer did not know its products were being sold in New Zealand, or where it had consciously chosen not to sell its products here. These concerns did not arise on the facts of the case, so the Court did not need to determine “whether such a result would go beyond the purpose of the Act, or whether private international law principles provide a solution to any apparent injustice in such a case” (at [80]).

In relation to the FTA, the Court accepted that the relevant issue was whether 3AC engaged in conduct in New Zealand that breached the Act, so the fact that s 3 (on the extraterritorial application of the Act) did not apply was not decisive (at [103]). The Act applied to false and misleading conduct in New Zealand, “regardless of where the defendant is incorporated and where it carries on business” (at [102], referring to Wing Hung Printing Co Ltd v Saito Offshore Pty Ltd [2010] NZCA 502, [2011] 1 NZLR 754). This included communications made from outside New Zealand to recipients in New Zealand.

 

Comment

The Court of Appeal’s judgment is to be welcomed. The principle of extraterritoriality has been responsible for causing considerable confusion in the past (see Maria Hook “Does New Zealand consumer legislation apply to a claim against a foreign manufacturer?” [2022] NZLJ 201). In treating the principle as irrelevant to this case, the Court laid the path for a clear and nuanced analysis of the issues. Not only did the Court refuse to adopt the lens of extraterritoriality, it was also prepared to rely on general choice of law rules, in addition to statutory interpretation, and treated both as relevant.

Courts often approach statutory interpretation and choice of law as exclusive methodologies. At the outset of the case, they identify whether the issue is one of statutory interpretation or choice of law, and then proceed with their analysis accordingly. Here, in relation to the CGA, the Court of Appeal applied both methodologies and found that the relevant connecting factor was the place of supply, regardless of which methodology applied. The implication seemed to be that there was a shared rationale for the place of supply as the most appropriate connecting factor and that, if the two methodologies had pointed in different directions, this might have been evidence that things had gone awry.

In this way, the judgment lends support to the proposition that statutory interpretation and choice of law are not engaged in any kind of “competition”. There is a reason why product liability is typically governed by the law of the place of injury (or the place of supply, where liability is for pure economic loss). Why should this reason not also be determinative for claims under the CGA specifically? The more difficult question would be whether a statute should be given a wider scope of application than it would receive under bilateral choice of law. But here, too, it would be unhelpful to think of the conflict of laws as a kind of jilted discipline. The goal should be to identify the cross-border considerations that bear upon the scope of the particular statute, when compared to the rationale underpinning the choice of law rule that would otherwise be applicable. How else can a court decide whether a statute is intended to fall outside of general rules of choice of law? Statutory interpretation, and characterisation, are necessarily intertwined. It remains to be seen whether future courts will build on the Court of Appeal’s judgment to engage more explicitly with the interrelationship between statutory interpretation and choice of law.

On Tuesday, January 9, 2024, the Hamburg Max Planck Institute will host its 40th monthly virtual workshop Current Research in Private International Law at 11:00-12:30 (CET). Jie (Jeanne) Huang (University of Sydney Law School) will speak, in English, about the topic

 

Can Private Parties Contract out of the Hague Service Convention?

Treaties are concluded by states but often impose rights and obligations upon private parties. Can private parties contract out of a treaty including states’ oppositions without explicit permissions granted by the treaty? The complexity between private parties, states, and treaties are reflected in recent cases and unsettled debates regarding the Convention on the Service Abroad of Judicial and Extra Judicial Documents in Civil or Commercial Matters of November 15, 1965 (“HSC”). The HSC contains a large number of oppositions imposed by 62 Member States including China, India, Singapore, and Germany. Combining public and private international law, this paper aims to explore the correlative relationship between party autonomy and state sovereignty in treaty applications using the HSC as an example.

The presentation will be followed by open discussion. All are welcome. More information and sign-up here.

If you want to be invited to these events in the future, please write to veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.

Fabian Kratzlmeier (Chicago) has accepted the invitation of the editors of the blog to present his recent book, titled ‘Die Grenzüberschreitende Unternehmensrestrukturierung im Europäischen Rechtsrahmen’ (Cross-border corporate restructuring and European private international law), published by Mohr Siebeck.

Reorganizing viable firms (instead of liquidating them) has been the state of the art in U.S. bankruptcy law for decades now, and it has become increasingly popular throughout Europe in recent years. This trend is reflected in legislative activities, such as the repeated reform efforts to the German bankruptcy code aiming at rescuing profitable, but over-indebted firms within the traditional insolvency procedure. It is also evidenced by practical patterns, most notably (not only) German companies using foreign restructuring instruments, in particular the English Scheme of Arrangement, to amend their financing structure while continuing trading in the 2010s. Even then – more than a decade ago – the wide-reaching impacts of such cross-border restructurings were heavily discussed in bankruptcy and private international law scholarship by some scholars, showing the (not only political) brisance of private international law in the area of restructuring law.

Whenever the earnings of a debtor company no longer cover its financial obligations, the creditors (and the shareholders) share a common interest in maximizing the pool of distributable assets. Where the continuation of the business under the old legal entity promises a higher present value compared to the liquidation of the debtor – be it piecemeal or through a business sale – economic logic demands a legal framework to resolve the underlying collective action problem. It is therefore the task of a modern insolvency and restructuring law to provide the parties involved with an appropriate set of rules that facilitates negotiations in order to adjust the debtor’s liabilities to the prospective earnings of the company (e.g. through debt reductions, deferrals or debt-equity-swaps).

In terms of the (continental) European landscape, the Restructuring Directive 2019 (hereinafter “Directive”) has set new standards in restructuring law, requiring Member States to reform and, in many cases, modernize their insolvency and restructuring laws. It mandates all Member States to maintain preventive restructuring instruments, enabling financially distressed companies to temporarily protect their business assets against collection or enforcement actions, and providing a majority voting scheme in order to cram down (groups of) dissenting creditors. In accordance with its minimum harmonization concept, however, the Directive leaves the Member States with a large number of choices and deviation options. Thus, the national restructuring frameworks differ widely from one another in some key aspects; e.g. regarding the entry threshold (the extent of financial distress required to access), the duration and scope of the moratorium, and the conditions and limits to the cram down mechanism (in particular as to group formation and priorities), to name but a few. The legal and economic positions of the various groups of stakeholders – and, consequently, their negotiating power in the immanent struggle over the distribution of going concern value – depend to a large extent on the jurisdiction in which the reorganization takes place and what options for action the local restructuring law offers to the respective stakeholders. It is obvious, that decision makers, when looking for suitable restructuring options, will not limit themselves to their home state’s reorganization tools, but explore foreign instruments as well, as past experiences with the English Scheme of Arrangement have proven before. As long as there is legal certainty, i.e. the reorganization is likely to be recognized by the relevant (i.e. asset-intensive) jurisdictions, decision makers have in incentive to choose the restructuring location that best serves their interests, ultimately resulting in a regulatory competition between national restructuring regimes throughout the EU. Private international law, in this context, regulates this competition by limiting (or unlocking) such choice of foreign insolvency and restructuring venues (and their respective laws). Against this background, the present study undertakes to comprehensively review and, building on its findings, further develop the legal framework for cross-border corporate restructurings within Europe, presenting a solution that is both coherent with existing European legislation, and consistent with the underlying principles of European insolvency law.

There is, however, another reason why further research in this area is desperately needed: Thanks to the ever-growing integration of the internal market and, thus, the establishment of international trade relations and supply chains, purely nationally operating companies (other than micro-enterprises) have long become the exception. It does not take much to make a national restructuring case an international one, i.e. the cross-border element does not need to amount to a foreign branch or similarly consolidated business structures. A foreign creditor or a third-party debtor based abroad suffices to turn a national company into an international restructuring case. Hence, the minimum harmonization of the substantive law by the Directive alone is not going to achieve the underlying goal set by the Union legislator, that is to provide all European companies with access to effective and efficient restructuring instruments. Rather, in cases with cross-border exposure, the question inevitably arises as to whether the financial crisis can be overcome in a single procedure – hauling all (including foreign) affected parties into one procedure and having it recognized across all (relevant) jurisdictions – or whether several procedures are necessary in order to implement a sustainable restructuring of the company and thus safe the going concern value.

Unfortunately, this need for international coordination and harmonization of cross-border corporate reorganizations, arising from the very conceptual nature of collective proceedings, has been hardly taken into account by the legislator when drafting the Directive. There are only three recitals (12 to 14) dealing with these issues in the first place, and even they contain only rudimentary (and hardly expedient) considerations regarding the relationship between the Directive and existing regulations in European private international law. In particular, they reference the European Regulation on Insolvency Proceedings (EIR) as well as the center of main interest (COMI), which is of paramount importance to the current international insolvency regime, to which it serves as the central connecting factor determining both jurisdiction and applicable law. In terms of (reliable) conclusions regarding the classification of the new restructuring frameworks and their integration into the existing private international law framework, however, the recitals only provide limited guidance. The recitals make it clear, though, that at least some of the proceedings created in transposing the Directive (i.e. those that are to be publicly announced) shall be subject to the EIR and, therefore, be included in the latter’s Annex A.

The study takes this as its starting point to demonstrate that the EIR provides a tailor-made set of rules for public proceedings, providing clear and (for the most part) fitting rules on international jurisdiction and applicable law while also guaranteeing EU-wide recognition. At the same time, however, there are some drawbacks in the EIR’s application to restructuring proceedings mainly resulting in setbacks to the collectivization mechanism aimed at on a substantive level. These issues, including rights in rem and secondary proceedings, are discussed in depth, and appropriate solutions are presented both de lege lata and de lege ferenda.

Turing to confidential restructuring frameworks, to which the recitals are silent, the scholarly debate is still evolving. Due to their private nature, they are increasingly popular in practice. At least in part motivated by the onsetting regulatory competition in the field, therefore, many Member States (including Germany, the Netherlands, and Austria) opted for a dual transposition enacting both a public and a private alternative. Since confidential procedures will not be included in Annex A and, thus, will prima facie remain outside the scope of the EIR, there are considerable hurdles to overcome in order to embed such procedures into the existing European private international law framework. First and foremost, the so-called bankruptcy clause enshrined in Art. 1 (2)(b) Brussels I bis Regulation challenges the integration into the existing secondary law altogether. A closer look at the issue reveals, however, that this provision excludes only those procedures, which qualify as “insolvency proceedings” under Art. 1 EIR, regardless of whether such proceeding is included in Annex A. Turning to international jurisdiction, the study is building on the controversy and the different propositions surrounding international jurisdiction to restructure foreign companies under an English scheme of arrangement. In that context, the arguments previously put forward in support of Art. 8 (1) (jurisdiction wherever at least one affected party has her domicile) and 24 (2) Brussels I-bis Regulation (jurisdiction at the place of the registered seat) are discussed and assessed as to their validity with regard to the new restructuring instruments. After all, the Directive differs in key respects from its English blueprint, and, thanks to its EU-law origin, requires special considerations concerning the coherence of (secondary) European law. Ultimately, the study finds that neither of the international jurisdiction rules provided for in the Brussels-I-bis Regulation are well-suited (or even practicable) for collective procedures such as the preventive restructuring instruments under the Directive. Therefore, it calls for a concentration of restructurings at the debtor’s COMI, which is in line with (and, upon a detailed examination, even envisioned by) both the EIR, and the Directive itself. In this respect, the study, using state-of-the-art European Union law methodology, extracts a coherent and consistent private international law framework for confidential restructuring procedures, centered at the debtor’s COMI, and recognized throughout the EU. At the same time, it proposes legislative amendments to the current system to clarify the private international law rules on cross-border restructurings – both for parties involved and Member States experiencing competitive pressure – and to improve the (few) inadequacies under the current legal regime.

Overall, the study reveals that the applicable law concentrates – public and confidential – restructuring proceedings at the debtor’s COMI on the one hand, but on the other hand also guarantees EU-wide recognition of the restructuring results achieved. The collectivization of creditors and shareholders implemented – in substantive terms – by the Directive, thus, continues on the level of private international law, enabling the continuation of viable companies even in a cross-border context.

The European Group for Private International Law (GEDIP) has recently adopted a position paper on the proposal for a Council Regulation in matters of Parenthood.

The Group welcomes that the EU intends to legislate in this field, since parenthood is a status from which persons derive numerous rights and obligations.

However, the Group is of the opinion that there are important shortcomings in the proposal due to the narrow perspective taken and an insufficient consideration of the legal complexities concerning parenthood in cross-border situations. It therefore encourages a reconsideration of the proposal in the light of its observations.

The Vrije Universiteit Brussel (VUB) and the Small Claims Analysis Net 2 (SCAN2) Project consortium partners and are organising a final conference regarding Small Claims Dispute Resolution on 22-23 February 2024.

The SCAN2 final conference will be organised around two main pillars: first, present the acquired research results of the SCAN2 project to the public, and second, bringing together international academics, practitioners, PhDs, and stakeholders in a supranational forum aiming to discuss the latest legal developments on the existing legal remedies for the small claims models of dispute resolutions for consumers within the European Union.

The call for papers concerns the second pillar of the conference focused on the latest developments and sharing of knowledge in relation to the European models of small claims dispute resolution and online dispute resolution (ODR).

Special consideration will be made for the topics discussing the European Small Claims Procedure Regulation (EU) 861/2007 (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421), but the organisers encourage submissions also on the following topics: small claims remedies for consumers; online dispute resolution for small claims; cross-border justice for consumers; small claims judgment and enforcement challenges; consumer privacy and data protection in using technology for resolving small claims; the connection between the Brussels Ia Regulation and the Regulations on the European Enforcement Order, the European Small Claims Procedure, the European Payment Order and the European Account Preservation Order and their implementation in national procedural law; best national and supranational practices of national small claims proceedings; digitalisation of small claims proceedings; different fora for the initiation of the small claims proceedings; relationship between the Digital Service Act and ODR for consumers; the future of consumer ODR; and the revision of the new ADR directive and small claims.

Additional information can be found here. Enquiries concerning the academic aspects of the event and the call for papers should be directed to the Conference Chair, Marco Giacalone, at marco.giacalone@vub.be. All other enquiries should be addressed to seyedeh.sajedeh.salehi@vub.be or paola.giacalone@vub.be.

Depuis quelques années, le droit de se taire ne cesse de monter en puissance et la loi n° 2021-1729 du 22 décembre 2021 pour la confiance dans l’institution judiciaire a parachevé sa reconnaissance. Pour autant, il pourrait y avoir des oublis. En effet, sa notification n’a pas été systématisée, notamment dans le cadre de la procédure d’exécution du mandat d’arrêt européen, et la jurisprudence entérine, une nouvelle fois, ce choix du législateur, dans un arrêt en date du 5 décembre 2023.

Sur la boutique Dalloz Code de procédure pénale 2024, annoté Voir la boutique Dalloz

en lire plus

Ugljesa Grusic has excellent and prompt analysis of Hugh Hall Campbell KC against James Finlay (Kenya) Ltd [2023] ScotCS  CSIH_39 here. I have background to the issues ia here and I reported on the now successfully appealed first instance judgment [2023] CSOH 45 here.

Dr Grusic first of all highlights the lack of engagement by the Court (as indeed at first instance level, too) with the impact of the employment section of the Civil Jurisdiction and Judgments Act 1982 on both the question of availability at all of choice of court in employment contracts to displace domicile jurisdiction, and of the overall availability of forum non conveniens in the same circumstances.

Next, unlike the first instance judge, the Inner House held that relevant Kenyan labour law protection (including compensation) does apply to the contracts at issue, [67] that the applicants have a working and affordable regime at their disposal in Kenya to try and obtain such compensation and [69] for the reason stayed the case at least until the Kenyan scheme will play its role (or not). [70] the court oddly adds that its stay is not one of forum non conveniens, which it says it is currently leaving undecided.

One assumes PTA with the UKSC will be sought for the points identified by Ugljesa are very much unresolved points of law.

Geert.

 

 The Centre for Private International Law (CPIL) of the University of Aberdeen is pleased to announce that it is now accepting is now accepting submissions for the 2nd Postgraduate Law Conference of the Centre for Private International Law which will take place online on 6 May 2024. 

The Conference aims to provide young scholars with the opportunity to present their research before panels with relevant expertise and receive valuable feedback for further development of their work. It will include panels on Private International Law aspects of International Family Law, International Civil and Commercial Law, AI and Cross-Border Legal Issues, Human Rights. You can read more about below. 

The Centre welcomes submissions by current postgraduate law students (LLM, PhD) and recent LLM or PhD graduates who have not yet undertaken postdoctoral studies. Each panel will feature up to 4 panellists, and each panel will be allocated a combined total of 1 hour 20 minutes of presentation time and 40 minutes of Q&A. 

The deadline for submissions is 29 February 2024. If interested in submitting an abstract, please complete the application form. 

The first view articles for ICLQ issue 1 of 2024 was recently published. As regards, private international law, it contains one research article and a book review as follows:

T Marzal, “The Territorial Reach of European Union: A Private International Law Enquiry into the European Union’s Spatial Identity”

This article offers a reconstruction of how the Court of Justice of the European Union (EU) justifies the territorial scope of application of EU law. Scholarship on this issue tends to advocate for an expansive projection of EU norms in the pursuit of global values, subject to the external limits of public international law. This article will develop a critique of this approach by pointing to its underlying assumptions as to the territorial dimension of the EU’s rule, the insoluble practical issues that it leads to, and the need to consider differently the EU’s spatial identity and relation to the wider world. It will also be argued that, in fact, other case law sometimes already reflects an alternative vision, by imagining the EU implicitly, not as a ‘global actor’ promoting universal values, but as a concretely situated and spatially bounded community. It will be shown that this is so with the methodological help of private international law, and in particular three doctrines that are traditional to this discipline—the localisation of cross-border relations, international imperativeness, and the public policy exception. This will ultimately allow for a more sophisticated understanding of the EU’s territory to emerge—irreducible to the physical coordinates of its acts of intervention, or the mere sum of the physical spaces under Member State sovereignty, but as a distinct space of social relations, informed and delineated by the particular axiology and structure of the EU legal system.

 

C Okoli, “Jurisdiction Over Non-EU Defendants: Should the Brussels Ia Regulation be Extended? by Tobias Lutzi, Ennio Piovesani and Dora Zgrabljic Rotar (eds) [Hart Publishing, Oxford, 2023, 376 pp, ISBN: 978-1-5099-5891-7, £90.00 (h/bk)]

 

The Spanish Association of Professors of International Law and International Relations (AEPDIRI) is organizing its VII Seminar on current issues in Private International Law on the topic A Private International Law centred on the rights of individuals. The seminar will take place at the Faculty of Law of the Universidad Pontificia Comillas (ICADE) in Madrid (https://www.comillas.edu) on 14 March 2024.

The Seminar is intended to discuss topics related to the challenges posed by the rights of individuals from a broad perspective and from a Private International Law dimension, related to the following thematic lines: Current issues raised by the regulation of the capacity of persons in Private International Law; Current issues raised by the regulation of parentage in international situations; The rights of vulnerable persons from a Private International Law dimension; Challenges posed by digitisation to the rights of the individual in private cross-border situations; Due diligence obligations in value chains and Private International Law; Civil liability of multinationals for human rights violations; New challenges in Immigration Law; Migrants’ rights from a Private International Law perspective.

Researchers are welcome to propose presentations which should cover one of the above-mentioned questions. Proposals should fit into the objectives of the Seminar and will be selected –for their oral presentation and/or publication- according to their relevance, quality and originality in respect to their contribution to the development of Private International Law studies.

Proposals should be submitted, following the requirements of the call, no later than 15 January 2024, by e-mail to: seminarioactualidad.dipr2024@aepdiri.org.

The working language of the Seminar will be Spanish, but papers may be also presented in English or French.

The submission of abstracts for selection as well as the participation to the Seminar are free of charge.

Ilva e.a.
Environnement et consommateurs
L’avocate générale Kokott s’exprime sur l’aciérie d’Ilva située dans le sud de l’Italie

Commission / Roumanie (Désaffectation de décharges)
Environnement et consommateurs
Déchets : la Cour impose des sanctions financières à la Roumanie pour n’avoir pas fermé des décharges non autorisées

Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite
Principes du droit communautaire
Cybercriminalité : la crainte d’un potentiel usage abusif de données personnelles peut, à elle seule, constituer un dommage moral

Commission / Amazon.com e.a.
Aide d'État
La Cour confirme que la Commission n’a pas établi que le tax ruling accordé à Amazon par le Luxembourg était une aide d’État incompatible avec le marché intérieur