Agrégateur de flux

61/2018 : 4 mai 2018 - Ordonnance du Tribunal dans l'affaire T-197/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - ven, 05/04/2018 - 11:46
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

Catégories: Flux européens

Liberté d’expression des avocats : la France condamnée pour violation de l’article 10 de la Convention

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

Catégories: Flux français

Notion d’action réelle au sens de la Convention de Lugano

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

Catégories: Flux français

Rotterdam conference on international business courts.

GAVC - jeu, 05/03/2018 - 23:37

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.

 

59/2018 : 3 mai 2018 - Conclusions de l'avocat général dans l'affaire C-207/16

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 05/03/2018 - 12:42
Ministerio Fiscal
DFON
L’avocat général Saugmandsgaard Øe propose à la Cour de déclarer que même les infractions pénales qui ne sont pas d’une particulière gravité peuvent justifier un accès aux métadonnées de base des communications électroniques pourvu que cet accès ne porte pas une atteinte grave à la vie privée

Catégories: Flux européens

60/2018 : 3 mai 2018 - Conclusions de l'avocat général dans l'affaire C-51/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 05/03/2018 - 10:00
OTP Bank et OTP Faktoring
Environnement et consommateurs
Selon l’avocat général Tanchev, une mesure législative adoptée par un État membre en réponse à un arrêt de la Cour de justice concernant le caractère abusif de clauses contractuelles non claires peut faire l’objet d’un contrôle juridictionnel

Catégories: Flux européens

Proving Chinese Law: Deference to the Submissions from Chinese Government?

Conflictoflaws - jeu, 05/03/2018 - 07:22

(This Report is provided by Dr. Jie (Jeanne) Huang, Senior Lecturer, University of New South Wales Faculty of Law)

The recent U.S. Supreme Court case, Animal Science Products, Inc. v. Hebei Welcome Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd, concerns what weight should be given to the Chinese government’s submission of Chinese law. On Page 58 of the trial transcript, Justices Kagan and Ginsburg asked how about other countries dealing with formal submissions from the Chinese government. There are two examples.

One is Hong Kong. In TNB Fuel Services SDN BHD v China National Coal Group Corporation ([2017] HKCFI 1016), the issue is whether the defendant, a state-owned enterprise, is protected by Chinese absolute sovereignty immunity under Chinese law. The court deferred to an official letter provided by the Hong Kong and Macao Affairs Office of the State Department in Mainland China. The Office answers no absolute sovereignty immunity to Chinese state-owned enterprises carrying out commercial activities. The Court adopted this opinion without second inquiry (para 14 of the judgment). After considering a bunch of other factors, the court ruled against the defendant.

The other is Singapore. In Sanum v. Laos ([2016] SGCA 57), the issue is whether the China-Laos Bilateral Investment Treaty (BIT) shall be applied to Macao Special Administrative Region. Chinese embassy in Laos and China Ministry of Foreign Affairs provided diplomatic announcements indicating that the BIT shall not be applied to Macao. However, the Court of Appeal of Singapore held that China’s announcements were inadmissible and, even if admitted, they did not change the applicability of the BIT to Macau. This is partly because, before the dispute with Sanum crystalized, no evidence showed that China and Laos had agreed that the BIT should not be applied to Macau. Therefore, the China’s diplomatic announcements should not be retroactively applied to a previous dispute. For a more detailed discussion, please see pages 16-20 of my article.

TNB Fuel Services and Sanum share important similarities with Animal Science Products, because the key issues are all about the proving of Chinese law. In the three cases, Chinese government all provided formal submissions to explain the meaning and the applicability of Chinese law. However, TNB Fuel Services and Sanum can also be distinguished from Animal Science Products, because comity plays no role in the former two cases. TNB Fuel Services concerns sovereign immunity, which is an issue that Hong Kong courts must follow China’s practices. This is established by Democratic Republic of the Congo v. FG Hemisphere Associates (FACV Nos. 5, 6 & 7 of 2010). Sanum is a case to set aside an investment arbitration award, so the Court of Appeal of Singapore need not consider comity between Singapore and China. In contrast, in Animal Science Products, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit elaborated the importance of comity between the U.S. and China. Therefore, Animal Science Products should not be considered as a technical case of proving foreign laws. The U.S. Supreme Court may consider deferring to the submissions of Chinese government to a certain extent but allows judges to decide whether the Chinese government’s submission is temporally consistent with its position on the relevant issue of Chinese law.

L’expulsion d’un terroriste vers le Maroc ne viole pas l’article 3 de la Convention

La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme a admis que l’expulsion vers le Maroc d’un ressortissant marocain condamné en France pour terrorisme ne viole pas l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. En revanche, en expulsant le jour même de la notification de la décision à la personne, la France viole l’article 34 de la Convention.

en lire plus

Catégories: Flux français

Pages

Sites de l’Union Européenne

 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer