Agrégateur de flux

Tribunal de grande instance de Paris, 06 avril 2018

Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005)

Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005)

Today, the EU Commission presented its long awaited proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (COM (2018) 184/3). The proposal and other related documents are available here. The directive shall appply to domestic and cross-border infringements (Article 2(1), 2nd sentence). With regard to the latter group of cases, the directive “is without prejudice to the Union rules on private international law, in particular rules related to court jurisdiction and applicable law” (Article 2(3)). However, Article 16 sets out some rules relevant for cross-border representative actions. It ensures the mutual recognition of the legal standing of qualified entities designated in advance in one Member State to seek representative action in another Member State. Moreover, it enables qualified entities from different Member States to act jointly within a single representative action in front of a single forum competent under relevant Union and national rules. The pertinent provision reads as follows:

“Article 16
Cross-border representative actions

1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that any qualified entity designated in advance in one Member State in accordance with Article 4(1) may apply to the courts or administrative authorities of another Member State upon the presentation of the publicly available list referred to in that Article. The courts or administrative authorities shall accept this list as proof of the legal standing of the qualified entity without prejudice to their right to examine whether the purpose of the qualified entity justifies its taking action in a specific case.

2. Member States shall ensure that where the infringement affects or is likely to affect consumers from different Member States the representative action may be brought to the competent court or administrative authority of a Member State by several qualified entities from different Member States, acting jointly or represented by a single qualified entity, for the protection of the collective interest of consumers from different Member States.

3. For the purposes of cross-border representative actions, and without prejudice to the rights granted to other entities under national legislation, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission the list of qualified entities designated in advance. Member States shall inform the Commission of the name and purpose of these qualified entities. The Commission shall make this information publicly available and keep it up to date.

4. If a Member State or the Commission raises concerns regarding the compliance by a qualified entity with the criteria laid down in Article 4(1), the Member State that designated that entity shall investigate the concerns and, where appropriate, revoke the designation if one or more of the criteria are not complied with.”

Uber France
Rapprochement des législations
Les États membres peuvent interdire et réprimer pénalement l’exercice illégal de l’activité de transport dans le cadre du service UberPop sans notifier au préalable à la Commission le projet de loi incriminant un tel exercice

Banger
Citoyenneté européenne
Selon l’avocat général Bobek, lorsqu’un citoyen de l’Union retourne dans son État membre d’origine, ce dernier est tenu de favoriser l’entrée et le séjour du partenaire non UE avec lequel ce citoyen a développé ou renforcé des liens familiaux dans un autre État membre

Pisciotti
DISC
Un État membre n’est pas tenu de faire bénéficier tout citoyen de l’Union ayant circulé sur son territoire de l’interdiction d’extradition vers les États-Unis dont bénéficient ses propres ressortissants

Le 21 mars dernier, Nicole Belloubet, ministre de la justice, garde des Sceaux, a présenté sa circulaire de politique pénale à l’ensemble des membres du parquet.

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Dijon, chambre sociale, 05 octobre 2017

Tribunal de police de Paris, 26 mars 2018

Pourvoi c/ Conseil de l'Ordre des avocats à la Cour de cassation, 24 mars 2016

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Versailles, 07 décembre 2017

Building on the success of the first German Conference for Young Scholars in PIL, which took place almost exactly one year ago at the University of Bonn, a second conference for young scholars in private international law will be held on 4 and 5 April 2019 at the University of Würzburg. Young scholars are invited to submit proposals for presentations in German or English that engage with the conference theme ‘IPR zwischen Tradition und Innovation – Private International Law between Tradition and Innovation’.

Further information on possible approaches to the conference theme can be found in the official Call for Papers; contributions may discuss any aspect of private international law relating to the theme, including questions of international jurisdiction, choice of law, recognition and enforcement, international arbitration, and loi uniforme. Submissions describing the proposed 30-minute talk in no more than 800 words can be made until 1 July 2018. While the conference language will be German, individual submissions may be made (and presented) in German or English.

All accepted contributions will be published in a conference volume.

 

I thought I had but seemingly had not, flagged Bob Wessels’ timely alert to [2016] COMP 039 Colin King (Supreme Court of Gibraltar). The judgment first of all looks at the temporal scope of application of the Regulation, holding correctly that it is not the filing for bankruptcy which is relevant but rather the time of actual openings of those proceedings. Further, it makes correct application of the various presumptions and definitions vis-a-vis natural persons.

Not a shocking judgment but one which is a good read for a gentle introduction to COMI. And as Bob notes, it was not quite the first to apply the new EIR.

Geert.

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

 

Publiées le 23 mars 2018, les statistiques judiciaires de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) révèlent que 1 656 affaires ont été introduites devant la Cour de justice et le Tribunal en 2017.

en lire plus

Cet arrêt du Tribunal de l’Union européenne rendu le 22 mars 2018 est une illustration de ce que les institutions européennes ne peuvent refuser l’accès à certains documents de nature législative que dans des cas dûment justifiés.

en lire plus

Les poursuites à l’encontre du requérant ayant été conduites par les juridictions de deux États différents, à savoir l’Allemagne et la France, l’article 4 du protocole n° 7 ne trouve pas à s’appliquer, ce constat dispensant la CEDH de rechercher si la décision de classement sans suite équivaut à un jugement définitif d’acquittement. 

en lire plus

Non lieu à renvoi

Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 1, chambre 2, 22 mars 2018

Tribunal d'instance d'Antibes, 29 mars 2018