Agrégateur de flux

I reported on submission to jurisdiction in the English legal context in re Golden Endurance, and on the issue of the application of (now) Brussel I Recast’s Article 24’s exclusive jurisdictional rules in Dal Al Arkan. In Dennis v TAG Group [2017] EWHC 919 (Ch) the High Court first of all revisits the issue of submission to jurisdiction in the context of injunction proceedings, and also held that permission for service out of jurisdiction is not required since the (now) Article 24 rules apply regardless of domicile of the parties. Clyde & Co have summary of the facts here.

Mr Dennis was the CEO of the England and Wales incorporated McLaren Technology Group Ltd. He claims he has suffered unfair prejudice as a result of suggested Board resolutions to be passed (and now passed) and relies on purported breaches of the Companies Act 2006, articles of association, shareholder agreement and service agreement to support his petition: this arguably engages Article 24(2) of the Brussels I Recast.

Application for injunctive relief sought to restrain Respondents from placing Plaintiff on garden leave and delegating the authority of the board to an interim committee. At issue first is whether Respondents’ engagement with the injunctive proceedings amounted to submission of jurisdiction. Briggs CR held that it so did: language in isolated correspondence reserving rights as to jurisdiction amounts to nothing if parties keep schtum about it when it really matters: at the injunctive hearings and forms relating to same.

Briggs held that even in the alternative, had there not been submission, Article 24 (I assume what is meant is Article 24(2) given the subject of the claim) applies regardless of the domicile of the parties hence submission is irrelevant (and indeed permission for service out of jurisdiction not required  – one assumed to the (insurance) relief of Respindents’ counsel. On that point Dal Arkan had already been confirmed Deutsche Bank AG v Sebastian Holdings Inc & Alexander Vik [2017] EWHC 459 .

A good and attractively concise ruling.

Geert.

(Handbook of) EU private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.6.

 

La règle selon laquelle le prévenu ou son avocat doivent toujours avoir la parole en dernier s’applique à la personne redevable pécuniairement d’une amende.

en lire plus

Un époux qui a sa résidence habituelle sur le territoire d’un État membre ou est ressortissant d’un État membre ne peut être attrait devant les juridictions d’un autre État membre qu’en vertu des articles 3 à 5 du Règlement du 27 novembre 2003.

en lire plus

L’article 132-23-1 du code pénal permet d’ordonner la confusion d’une peine prononcée par une juridiction française et d’une peine prononcée par une juridiction d’un État membre de l’Union européenne dès lors que la seconde a été intégralement exécutée au jour où il est statué sur la requête en confusion.

en lire plus

Assurances (règles générales)

Bail (règles générales)

Bail d'habitation

Servitude

Bettina Rentsch, Humboldt-University Berlin, has authored book about the concept of “habitual residence” in European private international law (Der gewöhnliche Aufenthalt im System des Europäischen Kollisionsrechts, ISBN 978-3-16-155172-7). Published by Mohr Siebeck, she sheds light on the concept as such and re-frames the ongoing academic debate with a focus on the relationship between habitual residence and party autonomy.

The book is in German, but the author has kindly provided us with the following English language summary:

European PIL has become increasingly heterogeneous in its legal foundations, shape and principles. Still, all so-called “Rome” regulations are homogeneous if not even uniform in their connecting factors: In the absence of Choice, the law applicable will determined by virtue of Habitual Residence. As a general baseline, the pairing of Party Autonomy and Habitual Residence is a common feature of all Rome regulations. While the recent rise of the former anhas given rise to widespread academic discussion, little has been said on why the EU legislator ever came to choose Habitual Residence as its primary “objective” connecting factor. Neither is there clarity on the political backgrounds nor on the secondary question of whether the former is identical in all contexts Habitual Residence is employed in.

In light of the increase of transnational migration in the EU, the present conceptual vagueness of Habitual Residence cannot be tolerated. In fact, there is both a need for reliable proxies in determining Habitual Residence and an urge to assess whether it can and must be understood and applied different in respective areas of EU Private International Law.

This publication undertakes a first, though definitely not final attempt to shape the blurry and vague notion of Habitual Residence in European Private International Law . Its objective is to, first, find overarching and general means and then to determine approproate criteria to previsibly determine the conditions for a cross-referencing between respective fields of application. Within this framework, the book presents two core arguments:

First, the threshold criteria for Habitual Residence are identical no matter its “purpose” and systematic environment. As a result, drawing the line between different instances of Habitual Residence is a question of degree.

Second, Habitual Residence must be interpreted in light of its respective neighboring choice of law-provisions. In other words, the the extent of choice of law possibilities must be understood as a proxy for interpreting Habitual Residence. Hence, the more leeway the European legislator confers to individuals and the more self-regulation through party autonomy he allows for, the less control by authorities can be required. In practical terms, the mere presence and superficial social interaction of a human being can be sufficient to determine Habitual Residence in contractual relations, the visible limitations of choice in areas like successions law indicate legislative intent.

Contrat de travail, exécution - Règlement intérieur - Restriction à la liberté religieuse

Cussens e.a.
Fiscalité
L’interdiction de pratiques abusives dans le domaine de la TVA est applicable indépendamment d’une mesure nationale lui donnant effet dans les États membres

Professor Dr. Nina Dethloff, Institute for German, European and International Family Law, University of Bonn, Germany, is looking for a research assistant (WissMit) on a part-time basis (50%) as of 1 January 2018 or later.

The candidate should hold a first law degree (as the German First State Exam) and be interested in the international and European dimensions of family law, comparative law and private international law. A very good command of German is required. Knowledge of French and English or other languages is an asset, as are good IT skills.

The fellow will have the opportunity to conduct his or her PhD project (according to the Faculty’s regulations). The position is paid according to the German public salary scale E-13 TV-L, 50%.

If you are interested, please send your application (cover letter, CV and relevant documents, notably Abitur, university transcripts and law degree) to Professor Dr. Nina Dethloff, LL.M., Institute for German, European and International Family Law, Adenauerallee 8a, 53113 Bonn by 22 December 2017 (Reference number: 76/17/3.13). All applications have to be sent in writing (conventional post or pdf document via e-mail).

Please address all questions regarding your application to Mrs Christiane Stadie (dethloff@uni-bonn.de or +49 (0)228/73-9290).

The University of Bonn is an equal opportunity employer. Thus, the University of Bonn especially encourages highly skilled female applicants to apply for jobs in areas in which they are underrepresented. All applications will be measured by the “Landesgleichstellungsgesetz”.

The full job advert in German is accessible here.

 

La Cour de justice de l’Union européenne se prononce sur l’hypothèse d’un legs soumis à la loi d’un État membre mais qui concerne un bien situé dans un autre État membre .

en lire plus

Par une ordonnance rendue le 8 novembre, le juge du référé liberté du Conseil d’État précise les cas d’interruption du délai de six mois prévu par l’article 29 du règlement du 26 juin 2013 pour effectuer le transfert d’un étranger dont la demande d’asile relève d’un autre État membre de l’Union européenne (« dubliné »).

en lire plus

Dans le cas de la condamnation pénale d’un passeur de migrants en Grèce, la Cour européenne juge que la durée de la procédure d’appel avait excédé le délai raisonnable mais que cela n’avait finalement pas entraîné une durée de réclusion supérieure à celle que le requérant aurait dû encourir.

en lire plus

Commission / Pologne
Environnement et consommateurs
Sauf cas exceptionnel et strictement nécessaire pour assurer la sécurité publique, la Pologne doit cesser immédiatement les opérations de gestion forestière active dans la forêt de Białowieża