Agrégateur de flux

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a condamné la France le 6 juin 2019 pour violation du droit à ne pas être jugé ou puni deux fois en raison de la double poursuite et condamnation prononcée par l’Autorité des marchés financiers et les juridictions pénales.

en lire plus

Statut collectif du travail

Mineur - Cour d'assise

Abus de faiblesse

Yesterday the Council of the European Union adopted the Council regulation on jurisdiction, the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matrimonial matters and the matters of parental responsibility, and on international child abduction (recast) (Brussels IIa regulation). For more information, see here.

As indicated on the Council’s website, the new rules will apply 3 years after the publication of the regulation in the Official Journal of the European Union.

For an English version of the regulation, see here (dated 24 May 2019). A Spanish version is available here (dated 24 June 2019).

 

The Institute for International Business Law of the University of Münster (Germany) will be hosting a conference on “Kollisionsrecht 4.0 – Künstliche Intelligenz, smart contracts und Bitcoins als Herausforderungen für das Internationale Privatrecht” on 8 November 2019 in Münster (Germany). The conference will examine the conflict of laws challenges arising from artificial intelligence and blockchain phenomena. Wolfgang Prinz (Fraunhofer Institute for Applied Information Technology FIT), will provide the indispensible technical background.

Speakers are Stefan Arnold, Bettina Heiderhoff, Matthias Lehmann, Jan Lüttringhaus, Gerald Mäsch and Michael Stürner. Further information and registration (before October 24th) at https://zivindico.uni-muenster.de/e/kollisionsrecht.

Craeynest e.a.
Environnement et consommateurs
Les juridictions nationales sont compétentes pour contrôler le choix de l’emplacement des stations de mesure de la qualité de l’air et prendre, à l’égard de l’autorité nationale concernée, toute mesure nécessaire

Craeynest e.a.
Environnement et consommateurs
Les juridictions nationales sont compétentes pour contrôler le choix de l’emplacement des stations de mesure de la qualité de l’air et prendre, à l’égard de l’autorité nationale concernée, toute mesure nécessaire

« Sauf lorsque soit les lois, règlements ou usages en vigueur dans l’État où l’acte est produit, soit une entente entre deux ou plusieurs États contractants l’écartent, la simplifient ou dispensent l’acte de légalisation, les actes publics qui ont été établis sur le territoire d’un État contractant et qui doivent être produits sur le territoire d’un autre État contractant, doivent être revêtus de l’apostille, délivrée par l’autorité compétente de l’État d’où émane le document. »

en lire plus

Not all of [2019] EWHC 1579 (Fam) RJ v Tigipko is easily understood. Detail is kept private and proceedings were conducted in camera for evident reasons. The case concerns an earlier order to return a child from the Ukraine, which was followed up by an unsuccessful appeal to the Ukrainian courts to recognise this order under the 1996 Hague convention. Application in England now is to beef up the return order.

What is of interest to the blog is the consideration of action against the maternal grandfather. From the little detail in the judgment one can infer that he is complicit in the parental kidnapping. What exactly is being asked from him is not made clear however it is not quite like an anti-suit but rather (at 21) ‘a mandatory injunction requiring a party to commence and act in a foreign suit in a certain way, which is an order.’ Here, at 20, Mostyn J would seem to be minded to apply CJEU C-159/02 Turner v Grovit to Hague Convention States.

That, I would suggest, is a bold move not supported by either authority or spirit of EU law. Full argument on it will be heard later.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.1.

Détention provisoire

Chasse

Action civile

Action civile

In [2019] EWHC 960 (Ch) New Look Secured Issuer and New Look Ltd, Smith J at H applies the standing rules on jurisdiction over the scheme and other companies which I also signalled in Algeco and Apcoa (with further reference in the latter post). Against the scheme companies jurisdiction is straightforward: they are England incorporated.  Against the scheme creditors, English courts apply the jurisdictional test viz the Brussels I Recast (‘a’) Regulation arguendo: if it were to apply (which the English Courts have taken no definitive stance on), would an English court have jurisdiction? Yes, it is held: under Article 8 (anchor defendants). (Often Article 25 is used as argument, too).

At 48 Smith J signals the ‘intensity’ issue: ‘In some cases it has been suggested that it may not be enough to identify a single creditor domiciled in the United Kingdom, and that the court should consider whether the number and size of creditors in the UK are sufficiently large: see Re Van Gansewinkel Groep, [2015] EWHC 2151 (Ch) at [51]); Global Garden Products at [25]; Re Noble Group Ltd [2018] EWHC 3092 (Ch) at [114] to [116].’ Smith J is minded towards the first, more liberal approach: at 49. He refers to the liberal anchoring approach in competition cases, both stand-alone (think Media Saturn) and follow-on (think Posten /Bring v Volvo, with relevant links there).

At 51 he also discusses the ‘substantial effects’ test and classifies it under ‘jurisdiction’:

‘As well as showing a sufficient jurisdictional connection with England, it is also necessary to show that the Schemes, if approved, will be likely to have a substantial effect in any foreign jurisdictions involved in or engaged by the Schemes. This is because the court will generally not make any order which has no substantial effect and, before the court will sanction a scheme, it will need to be satisfied that the scheme will achieve its purpose: Sompo Japan Insurance Inc v Transfercom Ltd, [2007] EWHC 146 (Ch); Re Rodenstock GmbH, [2011] EWHC 1104 (Ch) at [73]-[77]; Re Magyar Telecom BV, [2013] EWHC 3800 (Ch) at [16].’ 

This is not quite kosher I believe. If, even arguendo, jurisdiction is established under Brussels Ia, then no ‘substantial effects’ test must apply at the jurisdictional stage. Certainly not vis-a-vis the scheme companies. Against the scheme creditors, one may perhaps classify it is a means to test the ‘abuse’ prohibition in Article 8(1)’s anchor mechanism.

A useful reminder of the principles. And some doubt re the substantial effects test.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd edition 2016, Chapter 5.