Agrégateur de flux

Aristou v Tesco Personal Finance. Article 7(1) and (2) entertain the Cypriot courts.

GAVC - mer, 03/21/2018 - 05:05

Thank you Andreas Christofides for flagging Aristou v Tesco Personal Finance, a case which engaged Article 7(2) and, I presume, Article 7(1) Brussels I Recast: forum delicti cq forum contractus. I tried to obtain copy of judgment but failed. It might not have helped me much anyway for I assume it was drafted in Greek.

For the facts of the case please refer to the link above. From Andreas’ description of the case I am assuming the Cypriot court firstly must have decided there was a contract between claimant and the UK bank, per Handte; that this was a service contract; and that per 7(1)b second indent, that service was provided in the UK. And that for the application of Article 7(2) both locus delicti commissi and locus damni were also the UK. (The court may in doing so have referred to Universal Music: not just location of the bank account in the UK but other factors, too).

Any Greek readers, in possession of the judgment: please correct if need be.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU Private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.2.7; Heading 2.2.11.1.b.

Contestations entre actionnaires : tribunal compétent dans l’Union

Un recours ayant pour objet le contrôle du caractère raisonnable de la contrepartie que l’actionnaire principal d’une société est tenu de verser aux actionnaires minoritaires de celle-ci en cas de transfert obligatoire de leurs actions à cet actionnaire principal, relève de la compétence exclusive des tribunaux de l’État membre sur le territoire duquel cette société est établie.

en lire plus

Catégories: Flux français

Article 227-27 du code pénal

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 20:23

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Riom, chambre correctionnelle, 22 février 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Article 221-6 du code pénal

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 20:23

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Limoges, 12 octobre 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Article L 480-5, alinéa 1 du code de l'urbanisme.

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 17:23

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Bordeaux - 6e chambre, 06 février 2018

Catégories: Flux français

Article 82-3 alinéa 2 du code de procédure pénale

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 17:23

Pourvoi c/ Président de la Chambre de l'Instruction de Bordeaux , 02 février 2018

Catégories: Flux français

Article 185, alinéa 3, du code de procédure pénale

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 17:23

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Nîmes, 29 décembre 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Article L 242-1, alinéa 6, du code de la sécurité sociale

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 14:22

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Amiens - 5e chambre, protection sociale, 21 septembre 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Articles 113-7 du code pénal ; Article 689 du code de procédure pénale

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 14:22

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Paris, 7e section, 28 septembre 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Article L. 732-39, alinéa 1, du code rural et de la pêche maritime

Cour de cassation française - mar, 03/20/2018 - 14:22

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Toulouse, 4e chambre sociale, section 3, 20 septembre 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Draft Withdrawal Agreement, Continued

Conflictoflaws - mar, 03/20/2018 - 13:30

It is not quite orthodox to follow on oneself’s post, but I decided to make it as a short answer to some emails I got since yesterday. I do not know why Article 63 has not been agreed upon, although if I had to bet I would say: too complicated a provision. There is much too much in there, in a much too synthetic form; per se this does not necessarily lead to a bad outcome , but here… it looks like, rather. Just an example: Article 63 refers sometimes to provisions, some other to Chapters, and some to complete Regulations. Does it mean that “provisions regarding jurisdiction” are just the grounds for jurisdiction, without the lis pendens rules (for instance), although they are in the same Chapter of Brussels I bis?

One may also wonder why a separate rule on the assessment of the legal force of agreements of jurisdiction or choice of court agreements concluded before the end of the transition period in civil and commercial matters (Regulation 1215/2912) and maintenance (Regulation 4/2009): does the reference to “provisions regarding jurisdiction” not cover them already? Indeed, it may just be a reminder for the sake of clarity; but taken literally it could lead to some weird conclusions, such as the Brussels I Regulation taken preference over the 2005 Hague Convention “in the United Kingdom, as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom”, whatever these may be. Of course I do not believe this is correct.

At any rate, for me the most complicated issue lies with the Draft Withdrawal Agreement provisions regarding time. As I already explained yesterday, according to Article 168 “Parts Two and Three, with the exception of Articles 17a, 30(1), 40, and 92(1), as well as Title I of Part Six and Articles 162, 163 and 164, shall apply as from the end of the transition period”, fixed for December 31st, 2020 (Article 121). In the meantime, ex Article 122, Union Law applies, in its entirety (for no exception is made affecting Title VI of Part Three). What are the consequences? Following an email exchange with Prof. Heredia, Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, let’s imagine the case of independent territorial insolvency proceedings – Article 3.2 Regulation 2015/848: if opened before December 31st, 2020, they shall be subject to the Insolvency Regulation. If main proceedings are opened before that date as well, the territorial independent proceedings shall become secondary insolvency proceedings – Article 3.4 Insolvency Regulation. If the main proceedings happen to be opened on January 2nd, 2021, they shall not – Article 63.4 c) combined with Article 168 Draft Withdrawal Agreement (I am still discussing Articles 122 and 168 with Prof. Heredia).

Another not so easy task is to explain Article 63.1 in the light of Articles 122 and 168. The assessment of jurisdiction for a contractual claim filed before the end of the transition period will be made according to Union Law, if jurisdiction is contested or examined ex officio before December 31st, 2020; and according  to the provisions regarding jurisdiction of Regulation 1215/2012 (or the applicable one, depending on the subject matter, see Article 63.1 b, c, d) Draft Withdrawal Agreement, if it -the assessment- happens later. Here my question would be, what situations does the author of the Draft have in mind? Does Article 63.1 set up a kind of perpetuatio iurisdictionis rule, so as to ensure that the same rules will apply when jurisdiction is contested at the first instance before the end of the transition period, and on appeal afterwards (or even only afterwards, where it is possible)? Or is it a rule to be applied at the stage of recognition and enforcement where the application therefor is presented after the end of the transition period (but wouldn’t this fall under the scope of Article 63.3)?

That is all for now – was not a short answer, after all, and certainly it is not the end of it.

34/2018 : 20 mars 2018 - Arrêts de la Cour de justice dans les affaires C-524/15,C-537/16 et les affaires jointes C-596/16, C-597/16

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - mar, 03/20/2018 - 10:09
Menci
DFON
Le principe « ne bis in idem » peut être limité dans l’objectif de protéger les intérêts financiers de l’Union et les marchés financiers de celle-ci

Catégories: Flux européens

Kaifer Aislimientos: the limits of Brussels I’s rules on choice of court.

GAVC - mar, 03/20/2018 - 05:05

[2017] EWHC 2598 (Comm) Kaifer Aislimientos, is a good illustration of the limits of Article 25 juncto recital 20’s lex fori prorogati rule.

Claimant argues that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to Article 25 Brussels I Recast because the relevant contract contains an English exclusive jurisdiction clause and further contends that the relevant contract was concluded by AMS Mexico and/or AMS on behalf of AT1 and Ezion as undisclosed principals and that, as undisclosed principals, the contract – together with the jurisdiction agreement – was binding on AT1 and Ezion.

That is the only part of the judgment to feature the Brussels Regulation at all. Peter MacDonald Eggers DJ could have referred to CJEU precedent pro inspiratio, including Refcomp for instance. He could certainly also have referred to recital 20, and equally failed to do so.

In substance he applies the Brussels I Recast rule by applying lex fori prorogati (here: English law) to all but the formation of consent questions relevant to the validity of choice of court (here: under what circumstance undisclosed principals are subject to choice of court).

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.9.4.

Reminder: German Workshop on Cross-Border Enforcement in the EU (“IC2BE”)

Conflictoflaws - mar, 03/20/2018 - 02:00

As we have already announced on this blog, the Albert-Ludwigs-University of Freiburg (Germany) will host a workshop on Friday, 13 April 2018, in the framework of the research project “Informed Choices in Cross-Border Enforcement” (IC2BE). An updated flyer with further information has just been released here. The project aims to assess the working in practice of the “second generation” of EU regulations on procedural law for cross-border cases, i.e. the European Enforcement Order, Order for Payment, Small Claims and the Account Preservation Order Regulations. Confirmed speakers include Professors Gerald Mäsch (University of Münster), Ivo Bach (University of Göttingen) and Stefan Huber (University of Tübingen), as well as Dr. Denise Wiedemann (Max-Planck-Institute, Hamburg) and Dr. Bernhard Ulrici (University of Leipzig). Their presentations will be commented on by distinguished practitioners, namely Dr. Max Peiffer (Munich), Prof. Dr. Andreas Baumert (Achern), Dr. Knut Messer (judge at the Central German Court for European Orders for Payment, Berlin), Dr. Bartosz Sujecki (Amsterdam), Dr. David Einhaus (Freiburg) and Dr. Nils H. Harbeck (Hamburg). The language of the workshop will be German. Participation is free of charge, but requires a registration.

Contenus illicites en ligne : ce que l’Union européenne recommande

Dans une recommandation publiée le 6 mars 2018, la Commission européenne définit un certain nombre de mesures devant être prises par les entreprises et les États membres pour lutter contre les contenus illicites en ligne, et notamment ceux à caractère terroriste.

en lire plus

Catégories: Flux français

Loyer réglementé : charge exorbitante et disproportionnée justifiant la violation du droit au respect de ses biens

Constitue une violation de l’article 1er du Protocole additionnel à la Convention de sauvegarde des droits de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales, le fait pour un État, par une législation encadrant les loyers, de favoriser le maintien dans les lieux d’un locataire payant des loyers très modérés, alors même que le coût actuel de la vie a augmenté.

en lire plus

Catégories: Flux français

La protection du passager aérien victime d’un retard de vol : entre droit commun et droit spécial

Le passager aérien qui réclame une indemnisation pour retard de vol est tenu d’apporter la preuve qu’il s’était présenté à l’enregistrement, ainsi que l’exige le règlement (CE) n° 261/2004 du 11 février 2004 sur les droits des passagers aériens. Par ailleurs, en dépit de ce règlement, le passager peut réclamer une indemnisation sur le fondement de la Convention de Montréal du 18 mai 1999.

en lire plus

Catégories: Flux français

Draft Withdrawal Agreement 19 March 2018: Still a Way to Go

Conflictoflaws - lun, 03/19/2018 - 18:43

Today, the European Union and the United Kingdom have reached an agreement on the transition period for Brexit: from March 29 of next year, date of disconnection, until December 31, 2020. The news are of course available in the press, and the Draft Withdrawal Agreement of 19 March 2018 has already been published… coloured: In green, the text is agreed at negotiators’ level and will only be subject to technical legal revisions in the coming weeks. In yellow, the text is agreed on the policy objective but drafting changes or clarifications are still required. In white, the text corresponds to text proposed by the Union on which discussions are ongoing as no agreement has yet been found. For ongoing judicial cooperation in civil and commercial matters (Title VI of Part III, to be applied from December 31, 2020: see Art. 168), this actually means that subject to “technical legal revisions”, the following has been accepted:

  • Art. 62: The EU and the UK are in accordance as to the application by the latter (no need to mention the MS for obvious reasons) of the Rome I and Rome II regulations to contracts concluded before the end of the transition period, and in respect of events giving rise to damage, and which occurred before the end of the transition period.
  • Art. 64: There is also agreement as to the handling of ongoing cooperation procedures, whereby requests for service abroad, the taking of evidence and in the frame of the European Judicial Network are meant.
  • Art. 65: There is agreement as well as to the way Council Directive 2003/8/EC (legal aid), Directive 2008/52/EC on certain aspects of mediation in civil and commercial matter, and Council Directive 2004/80/EC (relating to compensation to crime victims) will apply after the transition period.

Conversely, no agreement has been found regarding Art. 63, i.e., how to deal with jurisdiction, recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions, and related cooperation between central authorities (but whatever is agreed will also be valid in respect of the provisions of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 as applicable by virtue of the agreement between the European Community and the Kingdom of Denmark, see Art. 65.2, in green).

In the light of this it may  be not really worth to start the analysis of the Title as a whole: Art. 63 happens to be the less clear provision. Some puzzling expressions such as “as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom” are common to approved texts, but may change in the course of the technical legal revision. So, let’s wait and see.

NoA: Another relevant provision agreed upon – in green-  is Art. 124, Specific arrangements relating to the Union’s external action. Title X of Part III, on pending cases and new cases before the CJEU, remains in white.

And: On the Draft of February 28, 2018 see P. Franzina’s entry here. The Draft was transmitted to the Council (Article 50) and the Brexit Steering Group of the European Parliament; the resulting text was sent to the UK  and made public on March 15.

 

 

 

Lois de police /ordre public /overriding mandatory law in arbitration: Paris Court of Appeal in MK Group v Onyx

GAVC - lun, 03/19/2018 - 16:54

Julien Huet and colleagues at White & Case have excellent insight in MK Group v Onyx. The Paris Court of appeal set aside an ICC arbitral award for violation of Laos overriding mandatory law. As such the violation of foreign ‘lois de police’ (overriding mandatory law in European private international law jargon) was seen as being comprised in French ‘ordre public international’.

It is clear that this approach increases the grip of the courts in ordinary on arbitral panels – lest the Cour de Cassation disagrees.

Geert.

 

 

Pages

Sites de l’Union Européenne

 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer