Agrégateur de flux

The most recent issue of the Osgoode Hall Law Journal (available here) is a special issue, guest edited by Janet Walker, Gerard Kennedy and Sagi Peari, considering the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act.  This statute governs the taking of jurisdiction and both staying and transferring proceedings in civil and commercial matters in three Canadian provinces: British Columbia, Nova Scotia and Saskatchewan.

The abstract to the introductory article states: “In 2016, the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (“CJPTA”) marked its tenth year in force.  Promulgated by the Uniform Law Conference of Canada, and adopted in British Columbia, Saskatchewan and Nova Scotia, the CJPTA was developed to clarify and advance the law of judicial jurisdiction.  In a symposium hosted by Osgoode Hall Law School, ten leading scholars were invited to present papers on specific questions in order to assess the promise of the CJPTA to meet the needs of Canadians in the years ahead and to provide leadership for the law in other parts of Canada.  This article provides an overview of the issues discussed in the symposium; it places the papers that were presented in the larger context of developments in the law of judicial jurisdiction in Canada and internationally; and it summarizes in an appendix the drafting reforms that might be made to the Act.”

The articles about the CJPTA are:

Judicial Jurisdiction in Canada: The CJPTA—A Decade of Progress (Janet Walker)

Six of One, Half a Dozen of the Other? Jurisdiction in Common Law Canada (Stephen G.A. Pitel)

Jurisdiction Motions and Access to Justice: An Ontario Tale (Gerard J. Kennedy)

Has the CJPTA readied Canada for the Hague Choice of Court Convention? (Geneviève Saumier)

General Jurisdiction over Corporate Defendants under the CJPTA: Consistent with International Standards? (Catherine Walsh)

Residual Discretion: The Concept of Forum of Necessity under the Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act (Michael Sobkin)

Three Objections to Forum of Necessity: Global Access to Justice, International Criminal Law, and Proper Party (Sagi Peari)

Cross-Border Transfers of Court Proceedings (Vaughan Black)

The Court Jurisdiction and Proceedings Transfer Act and the Hague Conference’s Judgments and Jurisdiction Projects (Joost Blom)

The workshop Cross-Border Debt Recovery in the EU. Application of the “second generation” regulations in France and Luxembourg, taking place at the MPI Luxembourg on June 8th, is organised in the framework of the IC2BE research project “Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement” (JUST-AG-2016-02). Funded by the Justice Programme (2014-2020) of the European Commission, this project aims at assessing the working in practice of the “second generation” of EU regulations on procedural law for cross-border cases – the European Enforcement Order, Order for Payment, Small Claims (as amended by Regulation (EU) 2015/2421) and the Account Preservation Order Regulations. The project is carried out by a European consortium comprising the MPI Luxembourg and the universities of Antwerp, Complutense of Madrid, Milan, Rotterdam and Wroclaw, under the coordination of Prof. Jan von Hein, from the University of Freiburg.

Experts and practitioners from different countries, mainly France and Luxembourg, will get together on the 8th of June to address the application in practice of the above-mentioned regulations in both Member States. Presentations will be given by Prof. Cyril Nourissat, Mr. Marc Cagniart, Prof. Agnieszka Frackowiak-Adamska, Mr. Max Mailliet, Dr. Alina Ontanu, Ms. Julie Jasson, Dr. Katharina Raffelsieper, Ms. Katrien Baetens, Ms. Alice Canet, Mr. Grégory Minne and Ms. Clara Mara-Marhuenda. A panel discussion will follow, with the presence of, i.a., Prof. Gilles Cuniberti, Dr. Justus Froehlich, Mr. Patrick Gielen, Prof. Olivier Hance, Mr. Jona van Leeuwen, Dr. Stephan Lesage-Mathieu, Dr. Carl Friedrich Nordmeier, Dr. Herbert Woopen. The program is available here.

The spoken languages will be English and French.

The workshop is conceived as a closed event. However, people having a special interest on the topic are invited to apply for admission upon condition they provide a short explanation for their interest.

Contact address: veerle.vandeneeckhout@mpi.lu

 

Tribunal de grande instance de Briey, 07 mai 2018

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Dijon - chambre correctionnelle, 09 novembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Nancy, 21 décembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Nancy, 21 décembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Reims, 08 mars 2018

Un doyen des juges qui s’auto-désigne dans une information judiciaire, qui omet de remplir le formulaire de désignation d’une juge d’instruction puis qui régularise ce document en l’antidatant commet-il un faux en écriture publique ?

en lire plus

The conference titled Pride and Prejudice in Cross-Border Cases will take place at the University of Rijeka, Faculty of Law on Tuesday 22 May 2018. It is intended to serve as an open forum for scholars and practitioners to address current issues pertaining to private international law. The programme offers selection of topics by speakers from both sides of the Atlantic. Conference fee is not charged, but prior registration is required at zeup@pravri.hr.

Bail commercial

Bail commercial

Propriété immobilière

Procédures civiles d'exécution

Sebastian Mock (University of Hamburg), Kristian Csach (Pavol Jozef Šafárik University in Košice) and Bohumil Havel (Institute of Law, Czech Academy of Science, Prague) have published an “International Handbook on Shareholders’ Agreements – Regulation, Practice and Comparative Analysis” addressing various issues of shareholders’ agreements. The book includes general remarks on specific topics related to shareholders’ agreements and numerous country reports. One chapter also specifically deals with cross-border shareholders’ agreements and private international law. More information is available on the website of the publisher (here).

Les débats à l’Assemblée nationale ont parfois été vifs mais les évolutions du projet de loi ont été peu nombreuses. L’article 2 a particulièrement mobilisé les énergies, l’opposition accusant le gouvernement de vouloir correctionnaliser les viols sur mineurs.

en lire plus

Bayer CropScience / Commission
Agriculture
Le Tribunal de l’UE confirme la validité des restrictions introduites au niveau de l’UE en 2013 à l’encontre des insecticides clothianidine, thiaméthoxame et imidaclopride en raison des risques pour les abeilles

Karel de Grote - Hogeschool Katholieke Hogeschool Antwerpen
Rapprochement des législations
La directive de l’Union sur les clauses abusives dans les contrats conclus avec les consommateurs peut s’appliquer à un établissement d’enseignement

Not just my blog posts on both cases follow each other closely. Tanchev AG in his Opinion in C-88/17 Zurich Insurance v Metso, takes inspiration from the Court’s findings in flightright (which I reported this morning). He emphasises the objective of predictability of the Brussels I Recast Regulation.

The case concerns multimodal transport of goods from one Member State to another. Pursuant to an agreement entered into with a Finnish undertaking, a British haulier undertook to carry goods from Finland to the United Kingdom. After the goods concerned were lost while being transported in the United Kingdom, the Finnish undertaking and the insurer of the goods sued for damages before a Finnish court. Does that court have jurisdiction per Article 7(1)b, second indent ?: in the case of the provision of services, the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the services were provided or should have been provided.

ALS concluded a contract for the carriage of goods with Metso Minerals Oy (‘Metso’), a Finnish manufacturer of equipment for the mining and construction industries. A cylindroconical crusher was to be transported from Pori in Finland to Sheffield in the United Kingdom. The crusher was insured by Zurich Insurance plc (‘Zurich’). Both Metso and Zurich are the plaintiffs in the main proceedings.

ALS, with the help of subcontractors, transported the crusher as follows. It was first transported from Pori to Rauma in Finland by a lorry with a low loader. At Rauma, it was unloaded from the lorry and driven on to a ship under its own power. After transport by sea to the United Kingdom, the crusher was again driven under its own power off the ship in the port of Hull and loaded onto another lorry. As Metso’s consignee did not have sufficient or adequate storage capacity, it asked a sub-contractor of ALS to drive the crusher to its own warehouse and keep it there temporarily for a couple of days. However, the crusher was stored there for a longer period, and disappeared before it could be delivered to the consignee in Sheffield.

ALS argues that only the place of unloading may be deemed to be the place of performance, claiming that the place of performance can only be one single place and that the place of final destination is of considerably greater importance than the place of dispatch. This, according to ALS, is consistent with the determination of the applicable law in respect of contracts for the carriage of goods under Rome I, which gives a degree of preference to the place of delivery and is to be interpreted taking into account the Brussels I Regulation.

The Commission, referring to CJEU predecent Rehder, Wood Floor Solutions Andreas Domberger and Color Drack, acknowledges that, in any event, the place of arrival is a place of performance, as it is the final place in the chain of transportation. The Commission further argues, however, that, bearing in mind the requirements of proximity, foreseeability and legal certainty, it would be appropriate to recognise in addition the place of dispatch as a place of performance.

The question of international jurisdiction arises in the main proceedings because the case has connections not only with Finland but also with other countries: Finland is the country in which the goods were dispatched and the consignor has its seat, whereas the destination of the goods being carried and the location of the haulier’s seat is in the United Kingdom, where, moreover, the goods were ultimately lost. Finally, in order to convey the crusher from Finland to the United Kingdom, it had to be transported through the waters of other Member States or waters under the sovereignty of no State. In ordinary language, the AG suggests (at 28) all these territories and waters are places where the contract was performed.

According to their wording, both sections (a) and (b) of Article 5(1) of the Brussels I Regulation refer to ‘the place of performance’ and, in the case of section (b), additionally to ‘the place in a Member State’. In consideration of the singular form employed, it seems,  the AG suggests at 30, that only one single place can be regarded as having special jurisdiction in respect of contractual matters. However, this conclusion is not borne out by the case-law.

In color Drack the Court ruled that, if it is not possible to determine one single principal place of performance, each of the places of performance has a sufficiently close link of proximity to the material elements of the dispute and, accordingly, a significant link as regards jurisdiction. In a dispute concerning the sale of goods, the Court has held that, in such a case, the plaintiff may sue the defendant at one of the places of performance — at his choice.

In flightright, as far as delayed flights are concerned, the Court considers both the place of departure and the place of the final destination to be equally significant under the contract, thereby establishing a sufficient territorial link between these places and any proceedings arising from the contractual situation.

(At 59) In the present situation, where the means used to transport the goods change as the journey progresses, particularly in harbours, the fact that the goods are carried in a number of different stages is also an inevitable feature of such transport. In the AG’s view, however, even the fact that it was necessary to unload heavy and bulky goods such as the crusher in question and transfer it across land under its own power, with the dangers in terms of loss or damage inherent in a procedure of that kind (including the possibility of theft), does not alter the situation in such a way as to give the places of reloading or transhipping an importance equal to that of the place of dispatch. Therefore, recognising the latter place, along with the place of destination, as one of two ‘places of performance’ does not enhance the number of available fora in a way as to give reason for concerns of forum shopping.

The AG clearly struggles between limiting forum shopping and enhancing predictability, and suitability of various places to assess the litigation at issue. The AG (at 60) finds support for his view that the intermediate stages should not so be given jurisdiction, in the fact that it is common practice not to mention the places of reloading or reshipping in contracts of the kind in issue in the main proceedings.

The AG concludes therefore that the place of dispatch and the place of destination are thus both ‘main places of performance’ under the second indent of Article 7(1)(b), whereas the loading places in general are not.

A good case to further complete analysis under Article 7(1).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1

 

One of my PhD students, Michiel Poesen, has an extensive case-note coming up on C-274/16 flightright – when it is out I shall include a link here. For the time being therefore I shall be very brief. In summary, the Court held

• first of all that the special jurisdictional rules of the Brussels I Recast do not apply to defendants domiciled outside of the EU. That was as such an obvious finding: these suits are subject to residual national rules on jurisdiction. However the Court makes a point, at 54, to emphasise that in accordance with the principle of effectiveness (effet utile), rules under national law cannot make it impossible or excessively difficult to exercise the rights conferred by EU law. Here: the rights of passengers under the flight delay compensation rules, Regulation 261/2004. Is that CJEU shorthand for suggesting that if a Member State were not to allow claimants based in the EU, to claim compensation against third-country defendants, it would contravene EU law?
• second, where an operating air carrier which has no contract with the passenger performs obligations under Regulation 261/2004, it is to be regarded as doing so on behalf of the person having a contract with that passenger. (At 64) that carrier must be regarded as fulfilling the freely consented obligations (a reference to the Handte formula) vis-à-vis the contracting partner of the passengers concerned. Those obligations arise under the contract for carriage by air. Consequently,  an application for compensation for the long delay of a flight carried out by an operating air carrier such as (here) Air Nostrum, with which the passengers concerned do not have contractual relations, must be considered to have been introduced in respect of contracts for carriage by air concluded between those passengers and the carrier with whom they bought tickets. (Per the first bullet-point above, provided that carrier does have domicile in the EU). Of note is that this finding of a jurisdictional trigger under the rule of contracts (7(1), does not necessarily imply that at the substantive level, the court with jurisdiction will eventually decide that there is a contract on the basis of the lex causae.
• finally, to determine per Article 7(1)b second -, the court of ‘the place in a Member State where, under the contract, the goods were delivered or should have been delivered’, a contract for carriage by air, such as the contracts at issue in the cases in the main proceedings consisting of a single booking for the entire journey, establishes the obligation, for an air carrier, to carry a passenger from a point A to a point C. Such a carriage operation constitutes a service of which one of the principal places of provision is at point C. That finding is not called into question by the fact that the operating operates only the carriage on a flight which does not finish at the place of arrival of the second leg of a connecting flight in so far as the contract for carriage by air relating to the connecting flight covers the carriage of those passengers to the place of arrival of the second leg.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1.

Par un arrêt du 8 mai, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a jugé que la demande de regroupement familial d’un ressortissant non-UE frappé d’une d’interdiction d’entrée sur le territoire doit être appréciée au cas par cas.

en lire plus