Agrégateur de flux

This one long overdue – I am adding it to the blog for completeness’ sake. C‑649/16 Valach was held end of December 2017. The CJEU relies heavily on Tunkers and recital 6 of the (old) Insolvency Regulation: the regulation should be confined to provisions governing jurisdiction for opening insolvency proceedings and judgments which are ‘delivered directly on the basis of the insolvency proceedings and are closely connected with such proceedings’: the latter two criteria guide the CJEU.

In the case at issue, the action for liability at issue in the main proceedings is the direct and inseparable consequence of the performance by the committee of creditors, a statutory body established by Slovak law when insolvency proceedings are opened, of the task specifically assigned to them by the provisions of national law governing such procedures. Consequently, it is clear that the obligations which form the basis of bringing an action for liability in tort against a committee of creditors, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, originate in rules that are specific to insolvency proceedings (at 35-36).

As for the second criterion, it is the closeness of the link between a court action and the insolvency proceedings that is decisive for the purposes of deciding whether the Brussels I Recast’s insolvency exception is triggered. That is the case here: at 38: in order to ascertain whether the liability of the members of the committee of creditors may be engaged because of the rejection of the restructuring plan, it will be necessary to analyse in particular the extent of that committee’s obligations in the insolvency proceedings and the compatibility of the rejection with those obligations. Such an analysis clearly presents a direct and close link with the insolvency proceedings, and is therefore closely connected with the course of those proceedings.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 5 Heading 5.4.1. Chapter 2 Heading 2.2.2.10.1

Une communauté religieuse est responsable, conjointement avec ses membres prédicateurs, des traitements de données à caractère personnel effectués par ces derniers dans le cadre d’une activité de prédication de porte-à-porte.

en lire plus

Parce que ces recours en référé ne visaient pas l’obtention d’un document de voyage temporaire mais seulement la suspension de l’exécution du refus de visa et le réexamen de la demande, ils n’ont pas suffi à redresser la violation alléguée de l’article 8.

en lire plus

In 2017, the French Cour de Cassation has promoted  a series of seven conferences on the application of foreign law, in partnership with the Société de législation comparée.

Theses conferences have just been published by the SLC.

Prefaced by Mr. Dominique Hascher, Judge at the Cour de cassation and President of the Société de législation comparée, the book contains the following contributions :

Jean-Pierre Ancel, L’office du juge dans la recherche du contenu du droit étranger (The judge’s role in establishing the content of foreign law)

Jean-Baptiste Racine, L’application par les juridictions françaises du droit uniforme et des conventions internationales (The application of uniform law and international conventions)

François Mélin, La coopération internationale dans la recherche du droit étranger : les méthodes classiques (International cooperation in researching the content of foreign law : traditional methods )

Florence Hermite, La coopération internationale dans la recherche du droit étranger : le renouvellement des méthodes (International cooperation in researching the content of foreign law : renewal of methods)

Sabine Corneloup, L’application facultative de la loi étrangère dans les situations de disponibilité du droit et l’application uniforme des règles de conflit d’origine européenne (Optional application of foreign law in situations of availability of law and the uniform application of rules of conflict of European origin)

Gustavo Cerqueira, La hiérarchie étrangère des normes devant le juge français (The foreign hierarchy of norms before the French judge)

Alice Meier-Bourdeau, Le contrôle par la Cour de cassation de l’application du droit étranger (The Cour de cassation’s control in applying foreign law)

Sara Godechot-Patris, L’exception d’équivalence entre la loi française et la loi étrangère (The exception of equivalence between the French law and the foreign law)

The book can be ordered here.

The International Max Planck Research School for Successful Dispute Resolution in International Law (IMPRS-SDR) is accepting applications for PhD proposals within the research areas of the Department of International Law and Dispute Resolution and the Department of European and Comparative Procedural Law to fill a total of 5 funded PhD positions at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural law.

The IMPRS-SDR was established in 2009 to bring together academics and seasoned practitioners with excellent PhD candidates in international dispute settlement to examine and compare international dispute resolution from a legal and interdisciplinary perspective. It is a collaborative effort of several prestigious research institutions in Germany and Luxembourg, namely, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law, Heidelberg University, the University of Luxembourg, the Max Planck Foundation for International Peace and the Rule of Law gGmbH, and the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law.

In addition to providing a stimulating research environment, the IMPRS-SDR strives to furnish PhD candidates with theoretical and practical insights into the many facets of international dispute resolution.

Selected PhD candidates will receive full-time research contracts of initially two years, with a possible extension. They are embedded in one of the Departments and its activities while also participating in activities organized by the IMPRS-SDR.

For further information on the admission criteria and the application process, as well as to submit your application, please visit: https://www.mpi.lu/imprs-sdr/call-for-applications/2018/ . Closing date for applications is 31 August 2018.

A short post on manufactured nanomaterials and data. (Readers will be aware that although the blog focuses mostly on litigation, I dabble in regulatory research and practice, too. And that nanotechnology regulation has been a consistent interest of mine).

Thank you Lynn Bergeson and Carla Hutton for flagging the study by EUON on data collection and reporting methodology for manufactured nanomaterials. EUON, the European Union’s Observatory for Nanomaterials, is hosted by ECHA – the EU’s Chemicals Agency. The study’s purpose is made clear on p.15 (only) of the report: the overall context is for the regulators to have an overview of the heterogeneous market for nanomaterials. In order to do so, the study measures the reliability etc of existing reports and studies on the nanomaterials market. It concludes that a Delphi study of the existing research would be required.

For those of you with an interest in information flows and the transparency of data, the implications are clear: part of the exercise of regulating new technologies is to know what is out there; and manufacturers’ data clearly are not making it into the public domain in a transparent and coherent manner. Consider alongside this report, for instance the proposed US EPA rule on transparency in regulator science.

Geert.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence - 3e chambre, 11 janvier 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris - pôle 5 chambre 10, 08 janvier 2018

Tribunal de grande instance de Rennes, 01 décembre 2017

Cour d'appel d'Amiens, chambre correctionnelle, 27 septembre 2017