Agrégateur de flux

Faute d’accord de l’occupant et à défaut d’une décision judiciaire, les visites domiciliaires en matière d’urbanisme méconnaissent le droit au respect de la vie privée et familiale.

en lire plus

Propriété littéraire et artistique - Succession

Peine

Santé publique

Prescription

Responsabilité pénale

Maximilian Schulze, an assistant of Dr. Susanne Gössl, LL.M. (Tulane), University of Bonn, has kindly provided us with the following report.

On 5 April 2019, the first meeting of the newly established research network “Young Private International Law in Europe” took place at the University of Würzburg, Germany. The network intends to create a Europe-wide exchange at ‘junior faculty’ level (predoc/postdoc) in the context of various comparative Private International Law (PIL) projects. The first research project and meeting in Würzburg deal with the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations”. This topic was selected in view of the recent series of decisions by the CJEU regarding international name law (see, e.g. CJEU C-148/02 – Garcia Avello) and, most recently, same-sex marriage (CJEU C-673/16 – Coman)) and a parallel discussion which evolved in the context of the case law of the ECtHR, in particular regarding the recognition of adoptions, same-sex marriages and surrogacy. In order to contribute to a pan-European understanding of ‘acceptance’ of legal situations related to a person’s status in a cross-border context to enhance the free movement of EU citizens and protect their fundamental rights regarding private and family life, the aforementioned first project of the research network compares the reception and implementation of the CJEU and ECtHR case law in 16 EU Member States (Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Romania, Spain, and Sweden).

The meeting, organised by Susanne Lilian Gössl, Bonn, and Martina Melcher, Graz, comprised a public and a workshop session. The meeting was kindly supported by the German Research Foundation (Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft – DFG) as well as by the prior meeting of the German “Conference for Young PIL scholars” at the University of Würzburg.

The public session

Martina Melcher and Susanne Lilian Gössl opened the public session with an overview of the project and outlined the results of the comparative study. Martina Melcher highlighted the aim of the project as an “academic offspring” for young scholars to facilitate their comparative law and PIL research interests by setting up a network for young scholars. Methodologically, the network selects a specific topic – in this project/meeting the “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” – on which participants first submitted national reports, which then led to a comprehensive comparative report and analysis, which will be finalized and published in 2020. Susanne Gössl further specified the network’s approach on how the individual reports are to be composed. This is to take CJEU and ECtHR case law in all fields of the law where member states’ awareness is high (e.g. name law, surrogacy and same-sex marriage) as a starting point and then look at the individual states’ implementations, including in particular the recognition by judgments and by rules of PIL. As the network is not limited to international family law, future meetings and comparative reports will also deal with commercial law topics.

Marion Ho-Dac, Valenciennes, then set out the methodological approaches to recognition. She highlighted the increasing importance of cross-border continuity of status in view of the circulation of people and recent refugee movements. When looking at the Member States’ approaches, she stressed two considerations one has to bear in mind: the legal technique of recognition and the underlying legal policy thereof. She then set of the three different approaches: traditional PIL methods, procedural recognition and alternative methods (e.g. uniform law on supranational level or a mutual recognition system at EU level). However, she concluded that none of these were perfect methods. In his responsio, Tamás Szabados, Budapest, doubted that legislators always have a clear methodology in mind. He exemplified this by the Hungarian PIL Act, in effect since 2018, in which no general theory of recognition is followed, although the responsible committee was aware of the recognition questions discussed.

Sarah den Haese, Gent, then referred to a 2014 academic proposal on the recognition of names that was not acted upon by the Commission and analysed its weaknesses which need addressing for a future proposal to be successful. Firstly, any proposal would require a harmonisation of conflict of laws rules. Secondly, she proposed recognition without a conflict of laws test and no control of the substantive law subject to a very narrow public policy exception only. Tena Hoško, Zagreb, responded by setting out the conflict rules implemented in Croatia. Although academic proposals had been submitted, the Croatian legislator did not follow them but rather opted to copy the German conflicts rule (Art. 10 EGBGB). Although she exemplified certain weaknesses in this newly implemented approach (i.e. the issues of dual citizenship and renvoi), she concluded that the new rules are a huge step forward.

The workshop session

The public session was followed by a workshop session in which the preliminary results of the draft comparative report on “Recognition/Acceptance of Legal Situations” were discussed among the project participants and a few other interested parties. The workshop contained four parts, each initiated by a short introduction summarising the major findings and followed by an in-depth discussion among the participants.

In the first part, the general awareness was addressed. In her introduction, Giulia Vallar, Milan, pointed out an academic awareness in many Member States that a comprehensive overhaul of the rules of PIL is required. This awareness is also registered by the legislator, however mostly by countries that were involved in CJEU cases. She went on to set out the areas of law in which awareness for recognition is high (e.g. name law and same-sex marriages or partnerships). She concluded that based on their awareness of the issue, the analysed Member States can be subdivided into those involved in CJEU cases, those indirectly influenced by CJEU case law and those influenced by the ECtHR.

The second part, focusing to the legal methodology employed for recognition, was introduced by Katarzyna Miksza, Vilnius. She pointed out and illustrated the huge variety of methods of recognition detected by the draft comparative report by reference to national laws. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that it would be rather difficult to reconcile the different kinds of approaches to recognition.

Thirdly, the substantive requirements for recognition were discussed. In their presentation, María Asunción Cebrián Salvat and Isabel Lorente Martínez, Murcia, highlighted the (general) prohibition of a revision au fond as a starting point before outlining three hotspots of the public policy exception (surrogacy, same sex marriages or civil partnerships, and name law) and further challenges for recognition, in particular fraus legis and the legitimate expectations of the parties, in the various countries. In the subsequent discussion it was pointed out that the comparative report also shows that the public policy exception does not only function as a bar to recognition, but can, as well as human rights, require and facilitate recognition.

Finally, the formal requirements for recognition were discussed. Florian Heindler, Vienna, initially drew attention to the difficulty of distinguishing between formal and substantive requirements and stated the definition of the comparative report of the former as requirements relating to form (i.e. of documents) as well as procedural requirements (regarding certain additional procedural steps). Also in the subsequent discussion the challenging identification and categorisation of requirements was brought up.

In the final discussion, it was immediately agreed that the project was until now only able to scratch the surface of the issues and further work and discussions were required and promising. Therefore, a continuation of the project was agreed on and a further meeting is already being planned.

Commission / Hongrie
Libre circulation des capitaux
En supprimant les droits d’usufruit détenus directement ou indirectement par des ressortissants d’autres États membres sur des terres agricoles sur son territoire, la Hongrie a manqué à ses obligations découlant du principe de la libre circulation des capitaux et du droit de propriété garanti par la Charte

My review of Kokott AG’s Opinion C-25/18 Brian Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov and Natalia Postnova (Kerr v Postnov(a)) discussed, as did the AG, the application of Brussels I Recast’s Articles 24(1) and (2) exclusive jurisdictional rules, cq the application of Article 7(1) jurisdictional rules on contracts, and applicable law consequences of same. The Court ruled on 8 May.

Coming to the first issue: Article 24(1)  – this is not properly answered by the Court.

I signalled the potential for engineering even in Article 24 cases: particularly here, the prospect of adding an enforcement claim to an otherwise contractual action. At 37-38 the Court deals most succinctly with this issue: ‘in so far as the action which gave rise to the dispute in the main proceedings does not fall within the scope of any of those actions, but is based on the rights of the association of property owners to payment of contributions relating to the maintenance of the communal areas of a building, that action must not be regarded as relating to a contract for a right in rem in immovable property, within the meaning of Article 4(1)(c) of Regulation No 593/2008.’: ‘in so far as’ – ‘dans la mesure où’: the Court would seem to dodge the issues here which the AG did discuss, in particular vis-a-vis the enforcement accessory: that discussion I feel is not over.

Note also the straight parallel which the Court makes between lex contractus under Rome I and Article 24. 

The discussion of Article 24(2) does lead to a clear conclusion: the forum societatis is not engaged, neither therefore is the lex societatis exception in Rome I. The Court follows the AG here, with specific reference to the Lagarde report (at 33-34).

As for Article 7(1) forum contractus: at 27 usual authority going back to Handte assists the Court in its conclusion that ‘even if membership of an association of property owners is prescribed by law, the fact remains that the detailed arrangements for management of the communal areas of the building concerned are, as the case may be, governed by contract and the association is joined through voluntary acquisition of an apartment together with ownership shares of the communal areas of the property, so that an obligation of the co-owners towards the association of owners, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, must be regarded as a legal obligation freely consented to’ (at 27). At 28: ‘the fact that that obligation results exclusively from that act of purchase or derives from that act in conjunction with a decision adopted by the general assembly of the association of the owners of property in that building has no effect on the application of Article 7(1)(a)’.

At 39-40 the Court then swiftly comes to the conclusion of ‘services’ under Article 4(1)(c) Rome I, without much ado at all. The AG had opined that the non-uniform nature of the contributions leads to non-application of the service rule of Article 7(1)b and therefore a resurrection of the classic Tessili formula: the CJEU itself went for the acte clair route.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6, 2.2.11.1

 

Contracts for the International Sale of Goods: A Multidisciplinary Perspective is set to be released by Thomson Reuters (Hong Kong) Limited at the end of July 2019. Edited by Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit, Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania, and Dr Sai Ramani Garimella, Senior Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University, this book has the following unique features:

• On the 30th anniversary of the implementation of the CISG (in the year 2018) and almost the 40th anniversary of the adoption of the text of the CISG (in the year 2020), this title at the right time provides value added content for students and practitioners alike considering CISG and its intersection with public domestic and international law;
• Unique and jurisdictionally relevant thought-leadership content – presents national perspectives;
• Providing fresh critiques on core principles as well as forecasting on potential areas for reform or improvement
• Multi-country author team providing perspectives from across diverse global jurisdictions as well as contributions from members of the Permanent Court of Arbitration (The Hague) and The Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Contributors include:

Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit – Lecturer in Maritime Law, Australian Maritime College, University of Tasmania

Sai Ramani Garimella – Senior Assistant Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies, South Asian University

John Felemegas – Senior Lecturer, Faculty of Law, University of Technology Sydney

King Fung Tsang – Associate Professor, Faculty of Law, The Chinese University of Hong Kong

Daniel Mathew – Assistant Professor, National Law University, Delhi

Lijun (Liz) Zhao – Senior Lecturer, School of Law, Middlesex University

Ernesto Vargas Weil – Assistant Professor for Private Law, University of Chile

Ngoc Bich Du – Dean, Faculty of Law, Open University of Ho Chi Minh City

Julian Bordaçahar – Legal Counsel, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague

Juan Ignacio Massun – Legal Counsel, The Permanent Court of Arbitration, The Hague

Benjamin Hayward – Senior Lecturer, Department of Business Law and Taxation, Monash Business School, Monash University

Rosmy Joan – Assistant Professor, Faculty of Law, National Law University Jodhpur

Andre Janssen – Chair Professor, Radbound University Nijmegen, The Netherlands

Luca Castellani – Legal Officer, The Secretariat of the United Nations Commission on International Trade Law (UNCITRAL)

Navin G. Ahuja – Doctoral Candidate, City University of Hong Kong

Dharmita Prasad – Assistant Professor, UPES School of Law

 

Details of the book shall be available soon from the publisher’s website: www.sweetandmaxwell.com.hk

To order:

Tel: +852 2847 2000

Fax: +852 2520 6954

E-mail: legal.hk@thomsonreuters.com

Mailing address: Sweet & Maxwell, Thomson Reuters Hong Kong Ltd, 15/F Cityplaza 3, Taikoo Shing, Hong Kong

Promotion code: CISG2019 – valid on or before 31 July 2019

For more information about the book, you can contact Dr Poomintr Sooksripaisarnkit (poonmintr@icloud.com) or Dr Sai Ramani Garimella (ramani@sau.ac.in)

 

PROGRAM COORDINATOR:
Prof. Marco Torsello

VENUE:
University of Verona, School of Law, Via C. Montanari 9, Verona (VR), Italy
INSTRUCTORS:
Ronald A. Brand (University of Pittsburgh, School of Law, Pittsburgh, PA, USA)
Tim W. Dornis (Leuphana University, Lüneburg, Germany)
Nevena Jevremovic (IACCM – International Association for Contract and Commercial Management, Bosnia-Herzegovina)
Tyler Ochoa (Santa Clara University, School of Law, Santa Clara, CA, USA)
Marco Torsello (Univ. of Verona, School of Law).

Pennsylvania lawyers participating to the course will obtain Continuing Legal Education (CLE) credits: additional information and registration instructions will be posted on-line at: www.law.pitt.edu/Verona

Révision et réexamen des décisions pénales

Dr. Alexia Pato (Senior Research Fellow at the University of Bonn) has authored a book on jurisdiction and cross-border collective redress (Hart Publishing). You may pre-order it online. A discount voucher is available here.

Summary:

Widespread law violations, such as massive data breaches, the use of unfair terms, and financial fraud, may affect numerous victims around the globe. Those violations are on the rise, stimulated by globalisation and digitalisation. Unfortunately, the development of effective procedural vehicles enabling victims to obtain redress is comparatively slow. As a result, a private enforcement gap persists, which can be characterised by a difference between the theoretical possibilities to obtain redress drafted by the legislator and the reality experienced by victims in daily life. Collective redress represents an interesting instrument, which may have the power to fulfil that gap. The US experience regarding the class action is a telling example in that regard. On the other side of the Atlantic, European Member States have adopted collective redress mechanisms, the features of which often differ from their American homologue. As a result, issues regarding their effectiveness have arisen and legal reforms have started in an attempt to solve them.

The adoption of collective redress certainly generates complex legal issues. The present book specifically analyses the allocation of jurisdiction in cross-border collective redress cases, inasmuch as it directly impacts access to justice. To that effect, several collective redress mechanisms, including the Dutch WCAM, the test case procedure, the class action, and the representative model involving intermediaries, are studied (ch 2). Their structure, functioning and goal(s) are explained and a comparative law table containing information on more than 20 collective redress instruments summarises those elements (annex II). The book takes full account of the US law on class actions in order to enrich the comparative law study (ch 1).

Then, difficulties in applying private international law rules on jurisdiction to selected collective redress models are highlighted and analysed. The most relevant case law is examined as well. Notably, the Shell decision issued by the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, the recent CJEU’s ruling in Schrems (C?498/16), and the VW scandal are thoroughly studied. Chapter 3 of the book highlights the current mismatch between European private international law rules on jurisdiction (BIa) on the one hand, and collective redress procedures on the other. As a result, the centralisation of claims protecting either general or collective interests in a unique forum is often difficult – not to say impossible. Besides, significant obstacles, such as costs of proceedings, lack of financing, and language barriers, further deter access to justice. The unprecedented empirical study included in this book confirms that statement (annex III).

In light of this, the EU has presented several policy papers; drafted a Recommendation in 2013; and enacted Article 80 of the General Data Protection Regulation dealing with the representation of data subjects. Besides, the Directive on representative actions is in the pipeline. A comprehensive analysis of those documents is provided in chapter 2 of the book. Although those legislative efforts are welcome, this book contends that EU measures have not satisfactorily lowered barriers to access to justice. Therefore, the creation of a new head of jurisdiction for international collective redress cases is proposed, the content of which is presented in chapter 4 of the book.

A table of contents is available here.