Agrégateur de flux

The impact of Brexit on the operation of the EU legislative measures in the field of private international law

Conflictoflaws - jeu, 03/01/2018 - 10:35

On 28 February 2018, the European Commission published the draft Withdrawal Agreement between the EU and the UK, based on the Joint Report from the negotiators of the two parties on the progress achieved during the first phase of the Brexit negotiations.

The draft includes a Title VI which specifically relates to judicial cooperation in civil matters. The four provisions in this Title are concerned with the fate of the legislative measures enacted by the EU in this area (and binding on the UK) once the “transition of period” will be over (that is, on 31 December 2020, as stated in Article 121 of the draft).

Article 62 of the draft provides that, in the UK, the Rome I Regulation on the law applicable to contracts and the Rome II Regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations will apply, respectively, “in respect of contracts concluded before the end of the transition period” and “in respect of events giving rise to damage which occurred before the end of the transition period”.

Article 63 concerns the EU measures which lay down rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions. These include the Brussels I bis Regulation on civil and commercial matters (as “extended” to Denmark under the 2005 Agreement between the EC and Denmark: the reference to Article 61 in Article 65(2), rather than Article 63, is apparently a clerical error), the Brussels II bis Regulation on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, and Regulation No 4/2009 on maintenance.

According to Article 63(1) of the draft, the rules on jurisdiction in the above measures will apply, in the UK, “in respect of legal proceedings instituted before the end of the transition period”. However, under Article 63(2), in the UK, “as well as in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom”, Article 25 of the Brussels I bis Regulation and Article 4 of the Maintenance Regulation, which concern choice-of-court agreements, will “apply in respect of the assessment of the legal force of agreements of jurisdiction or choice of court agreements concluded before the end of the transition period”(no elements are provided in the draft to clarify the notion of “involvement”, which also occurs in other provisions).

As regards recognition and enforcement, Article 63(3) provides that, in the UK and “in the Member States in situations involving the United Kingdom”, the measures above will apply to judgments given before the end of the transition period. The same applies to authentic instruments formally drawn up or registered, and to court settlements approved or concluded, prior to the end of such period.

Article 63 also addresses, with the necessary variations, the issues surrounding, among others, the fate of European enforcement orders issued under Regulation No 805/2004, insolvency proceedings opened pursuant to the Recast Insolvency Regulation, European payment orders issued under Regulation No 1896/2006, judgments resulting from European Small Claims Procedures under Regulation No 861/2007 and measures of protection for which recognition is sought under Regulation No 606/2013.

Article 64 of the draft lays down provisions in respect of the cross-border service of judicial and extra-judicial documents under Regulation No 1393/2007 (again, as extended to Denmark), the taking of evidence according to Regulation No 1206/2001, and cooperation between Member States’ authorities within the European Judicial Network in Civil and Commercial Matters established under Decision 2001/470.

Other legislative measures, such as Directive 2003/8 on legal aid, are the object of further provisions in Article 65 of the draft.

24/2018 : 1 mars 2018 - Arrêts du Tribunal dans les affaires T-85/16, T-629/16

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - jeu, 03/01/2018 - 10:01
Shoe Branding Europe / EUIPO - adidas (Position de deux bandes parallèles sur une chaussure)
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
adidas peut s’opposer à l’enregistrement, comme marque de l’Union, de deux bandes parallèles sur des chaussures

Catégories: Flux européens

Articles 7-IV et 7-II de la loi du 17 août 2015

Cour de cassation française - mer, 02/28/2018 - 18:53

Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Poitiers, 11 janvier 2018 - Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Bordeaux, 18 janvier 2018 - Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Rennes, 23 janvier 2018

Catégories: Flux français

Articles 43, alinéa 1er et articles 706-75, 706-75-1, 706-75-2, 706-76, 706-77, 706-78, 706-79 et 706-79-1 du code de procédure pénale

Cour de cassation française - mer, 02/28/2018 - 18:53

Pourvoi c/ Chambre de l'instruction de la cour d'appel de Paris, 1re section, 17 octobre 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Article L. 723-3 du code de la sécurité sociale

Cour de cassation française - mer, 02/28/2018 - 18:53

Pourvoi c/ Juridiction de proximité de Paris 1er, 16 juin 2017

Catégories: Flux français

Secure your seat at the global Conference “HCCH 125 – Ways Forward: Challenges and Opportunities in an Increasingly Connected World” at Early Bird Rates by Friday 9 March!

Conflictoflaws - mer, 02/28/2018 - 18:53

By the Permanent Bureau of the Hague Conference on Private International Law 

Get your registration now to have the chance to hear from leading Experts and to discuss with them the opportunities for, and challenges to, private international law and the evolution of the Hague Conference on Private International Law (HCCH).

Our Experts, including Professor Jürgen Basedow, who will deliver the keynote, Lord Collins of Mapesbury, The Hon Diana Bryant AO QC, Professor Richard Fentiman, Professor Horatia Muir-Watts, Professor José Moreno Rodríguez, Justice Fausto Pocar and Professor Burkhard Hess, to name only a few, will discuss a wide range of issues, including:

  • global trends in private international law and its importance to globalisation and an “open society”;
  • the general role of private international law in an increasingly connected world;
  • the importance of private international law into facilitating the protection of human rights (with a particular focus on family issues and child protection) and to promoting trade, commerce and investment; and
  • the relationship between public and private international law and what, if any, consequences may be the result of a possible convergence.

In addition, the Experts will explore how the HCCH can continue to be the pre-eminent global international organisation that develops innovative private international law solutions.

The draft programme for this global Conference, including all speakers, can be accessed on the Conference website located at: http://www.hcch125.org/programme.php.

The Conference is held in conjunction with the HCCH’s 125th Anniversary. It will take place from 18 to 20 April 2018 in Hong Kong, and is organised by the HCCH with the generous support of the Department of Justice of the Hong Kong SAR.

See you in Hong Kong!

 

Vacances de février, c’est le pied

La rédaction de Dalloz actualité suspend quelques jours la publication du journal. 

en lire plus

Catégories: Flux français

23/2018 : 28 février 2018 - Arrêt de la Cour de justice dans l'affaire C-46/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - mer, 02/28/2018 - 10:05
John
SOPO
La prolongation d’un contrat de travail au-delà de l’âge normal de la retraite peut être limitée dans le temps

Catégories: Flux européens

22/2018 : 28 février 2018 - Arrêt de la Cour de justice dans l'affaire C-3/17

Communiqués de presse CVRIA - mer, 02/28/2018 - 10:03
Sporting Odds
SERV
La réglementation hongroise sur l’octroi de concessions pour exploiter des casinos traditionnels et celle relative à l’organisation de jeux de casino en ligne ne sont pas compatibles avec le droit de l’Union

Catégories: Flux européens

Hofsoe: Scope ratione personae of Brussels I’s protected categories in cases of assignment (specifically: insurance).

GAVC - mer, 02/28/2018 - 07:07

In C‑106/17 Hofsoe, the CJEU held late January that the Brussels I Recast Regulation jurisdictional rules for jurisdiction in matters relating to insurance, do not apply in case of assignment to a professional party. A B2C insurance contract assigned to a professional party therefore essentially turns into a B2B contract: the rules for protected categories are meant to protect weaker parties only. The Court also rejects a suggestion that the assignee ought to be able to prove that in fact it merits the forum actoris protection (on account of it being a sole insurance practitioner with little practice): the weakness is presumed and not subject to factual analysis.

Conclusion: at 43: ‘a person such as Mr Hofsoe, who carries out a professional activity recovering insurance indemnity claims against insurance companies, in his capacity as contractual assignee of such claims, should not benefit from the special protection constituted by the forum actoris.’

Predictability, and restrictive interpretation of the Regulation’s exceptions to the actor sequitur forum rei rule, are the classic lines along which the CJEU holds the case.

I for one continue to find it difficult to get my head round assignment not leading to the original obligation being transferred full monty; including its jurisdictional peculiarities.  The referring court in this respect (at 28) refers to the applicable national law which provides for as much:

‘In that regard, the referring court points out, under Article 509(2) of the Civil Code, ‘all rights associated with the claim …shall be transferred with the claim’. In those circumstances, the assignment of the claim should include that of the benefit of jurisdiction.’

Indeed in Schrems the Court emphasises the impact of the assignor’s rights on the rights of the assignee. By contrast in Hofsoe, the assignee’s qualities (here: as a professional) call the shots. The Court essentially pushes an autonomous and not necessarily consistent EU law on assignment here. In Rome I, the issue has triggered all sorts of discussions – not least the relevant BICL study and the EC 2016 response to same. Under Brussels I Recast, the discussion is more silent.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.8.

 

 

Pages

Sites de l’Union Européenne

 

Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer