Agrégateur de flux

Instruction

Elections professionnelles - Liste

In [2018] EWHC 887 (Comm) Bankas Snoras v Antonov et al, Eggers DJ considers the extent of the typical undertaking by party having obtained a worldwide freezing order, to seek permission from the English court before enforcing the order outside England and Wales or seeking an order “of a similar nature”. The need for permission underlines the appreciation of the English courts that worldwide freezing orders require some careful handling viz third States.

I am happy to refer to RPC‘s analysis for the general issues. I just wanted to turn the attention of readers of this blog to para 65 of the judgment, which considers lis alibi pendens. The claims in England (based on Article 4 Brussels I Recast – domicile of the defendants) are not the only ones that have been introduced: Lithuanian courts are engaged, too. ‘The English Civil Claim is for the in personam remedy of compensation against Mr Antonov and Mr Baranauskas arising out of an alleged breach of their duties as directors, officers or shareholders of Snoras. By contrast, the Lithuanian Civil Claim is not based on alleged breaches of directors’ duties. Instead, there are two bases of claim in the Lithuanian Civil Claim, namely (1) a claim for in personam relief under the law of unjust enrichment because there was no commercial justification for the various transactions, seeking the reversal of that unjust enrichment; and (2) a claim for a declaration that the various transfer instructions were null and void and that Snoras remains the beneficial owner of the relevant assets; this is said to be a claim for an in rem (or proprietorial) remedy.’ (at 25)

There is partial overlap, nevertheless; it is also clear that the different formulation of the Lithuanian claims is to make them lis alibi pendens-proof. Nevertheless, Eggers DJ holds that the fact remains that there are differences in the formulation of the causes of action underlying the two sets of proceedings and, in addition, the Lithuanian Civil Claim seeks proprietary relief, as well as in personam relief. Article 29 Brussels I Recast is not mentioned but it is this article and analysis of same which is engaged.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Heading 2.2.14.

Esso Raffinage / ECHA
SANT
Dans le cadre de l’appréciation de la conformité des dossiers d’enregistrement d’une substance chimique au regard du règlement REACH, l’Agence européenne des produits chimiques doit s’en tenir aux procédures prévues par le règlement

K.A. e.a.
Justice et Affaires intérieures
Les demandes de regroupement familial doivent être prises en compte même si le ressortissant d’un pays non-UE, membre de la famille d’un citoyen de l’UE n’ayant jamais exercé sa liberté de circulation, est frappé par une interdiction d’entrée sur le territoire

Čepelnik
Liberté d'établissement
L’avocat général Wahl propose à la Cour de juger qu’une législation nationale imposant au destinataire d’un service de constituer une caution afin de garantir une amende qui pourrait être infligée au prestataire du service établi dans un autre État membre pour violation de la réglementation nationale du travail est contraire au droit de l’Union

In BDO Cayman v Argyle Funds, reported  by Harneys, the Grand Court of the Cayman Islands followed English and Australian authority in having an anti-suit injunction followed by a cost order against the party that had infringed choice of court. Costs including not just the domestic proceedings (that would be obvious) but also the foreign proceedings (here: in the US).

It is this type of measure which makes jurisdictions stand out and be noticed in civil procedure regulatory competition – not, as I flagged earlier, half-baked attempts to add some gloss via international business courts.

Geert.

 

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles - 9e chambre, 20 septembre 2017

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'assises de la Côte-d'Or, 24 novembre 2017

I have flagged once or twice that the blog is a touch behind on reporting – I hope to be on top soon.

I blogged a little while ago that the Brussels Court of Appeal had sided with Facebook in their appeal against the Court of first instance’s finding of Belgian jurisdiction. I had earlier argued that the latter was wrong. These earlier skirmishes were in interim proceedings. Then, in February, the Court of First instance, unsurprisingly, reinstated its earlier finding, this time with a bit more substantial flesh to the bone.

First, a bit of Belgian surrealism. In an interlocutory ruling the court had requested FB to produce full copy of the Court of Appeal’s judgment upon which it relied for some of its arguments. Perhaps given the appalling state of reporting of Belgian case-law, this finding should not surprise. Yet it remains an absurd notion that parties should produce copies at all of Belgian judgments, not in the least copies of a Court of Appeal which is literally one floor up from the Court of first instance.

Now to the judgment. The court first of all confirms that the case does not relate to private international law for the privacy commission acts iure imperii (I summarise). Then follows a very lengthy and exhaustive analysis of Belgium’s jurisdiction on the basis of public international law. Particularly given the excellent input of a number of my public international law colleagues, this part of the judgment is academically interesting nay exciting – but also entirely superfluous. For any Belgian jurisdiction grounded in public international law surely is now exhausted regulated by European law, Directive 95/46 in particular.

In finally reviewing the application of that Directive, and inevitably of course with reference to Weltimmo etc. the Court essentially assesses whether Facebook Belgium (the jurisdictional anchor) carries out activities beyond mere representation vis-a-vis the EU institutions, and finds that it does carry out commercial activities directed at Belgian users. That of course is a factual finding which requires au faitness which the employees’ activities.

Judgment is being appealed by Facebook – rightly so I believe. Of note is also that once the GDPR applies, exclusive Irish jurisdiction is clear.

Geert.

 

 

 

Enfermer un prévenu dans une cage de métal pendant une audience qui se tenait en visioconférence depuis l’établissement pénitentiaire constitue un traitement dégradant selon la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme.

en lire plus

Les personnes soupçonnées d’avoir commis dans le passé des crimes de guerres peuvent faire l’objet de mesure portant atteinte à leur liberté de circulation. La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne a précisé à quelles conditions ces restrictions pouvaient intervenir.

en lire plus

Christopher Whytock (Professor of Law and Political Science, UC Irvine) has published a number of interesting papers offering broad perspectives on the conflict of laws.

One is on conflict of laws and global governance and questions how conflict of laws contributes to transnational legal ordering: Whytock, Christopher A., Conflict of Laws, Global Governance, and Transnational Legal Order (March 14, 2018). UC Irvine Journal of International, Transnational, and Comparative Law, Vol.1, 2016; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-16. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3140886

The other is on the interaction between conflict of laws and international law: Whytock, Christopher A., Toward a New Dialogue between Conflict of Laws and International Law (March 21, 2018). American Journal of International Law (AJIL) Unbound, Vol. 110, 2016; UC Irvine School of Law Research Paper No. 2018-22. Available at SSRN: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3145220.

 

A revised Preliminary Explanatory Report on the Judgments Project in both English and French is now available via the Hague Conference website.  This Report has been drawn up (and revised) by Professors Francisco J. Garcimartín Alférez, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, Spain and Geneviève Saumier, McGill University, Canada.

A track-changes version of the Preliminary Explanatory Report has also been made available. See in particular the amendments contained in paragraphs 201-224 in relation to intellectual property rights, which is a subject that has been somewhat controversial. Other important additions are the declarations with respect to judgments pertaining to governments (see paragraphs 344-352) and the declarations with respect to common courts (such as regional courts, see paragraphs 353-360).

A Special Commission on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments will be held on 24-29 May 2018 in The Hague, the Netherlands. The agenda is available here. It is envisaged that a Diplomatic Session (i.e. a high-level negotiation with a view to adopting a final text) will be held in mid-2019.

Please note that the meetings above-mentioned are open only to delegates or experts designated by the Members of the Hague Conference, invited non-Member States and International Organisations that have been granted observer status.

Abel e.a. / Commission
Le Tribunal de l’UE rejette l’action en indemnité engagée par près de 1 500 personnes suite à l’adoption par la Commission d’un règlement de 2016 sur les émissions polluantes des véhicules

La condamnation d’un avocat à un avertissement pour avoir, juste après le prononcé d’un verdict, imputé à un jury criminel une partialité résultant de préjugés raciaux, est jugée contraire à l’article 10.  

en lire plus

Une action visant à déterminer le propriétaire d’un immeuble situé en France est une action réelle immobilière au sens de la Convention de Lugano du 30 octobre 2007, même s’il y a éventuellement lieu d’apprécier la fictivité de la société qui se présente en qualité de propriétaire.

en lire plus

A short post (my diary is clearing up ever so slightly – I may finally have time for a proper cuddle of the blog next week onwards) to flag my Rotterdam colleague prof Xandra Kramer’s conference on International business courts, on 10 July.

I unfortunately am already expected elsewhere hence I will not be able to ask this question in person, hence here’s one for someone else out there to ask: why are all these States busying themselves touting ad hoc special courts – when what they really ought to be doing is making their civil procedure system as a whole more attractive? : for surely it is not only the English language that attracts litigation to London.

A conference warmly recommended!

Geert.

 

Désistement

Irrecevabilité