Les dispositions du projet de loi sur la sécurité intérieure et de lutte contre le terrorisme, destinées à remplacer, au 1er novembre prochain, le régime exceptionnel de l’état d’urgence, sont revenues à l’Assemblée nationale dès le 12 septembre devant la commission des lois.
La CEDH juge contraire à l’article 10 de la Conv. EDH (liberté d’expression), la condamnation pénale d’un conseiller municipal pour diffamation publique envers un maire et son adjointe pour des propos qu’il a tenu lors d’une séance publique du conseil.
Les États étrangers bénéficient de l’immunité de juridiction lorsque l’acte qui donne lieu au litige participe, par sa nature ou sa finalité, à l’exercice de la souveraineté de ces États et n’est donc pas un acte de gestion.
Contrat de travail - Rupture / Procédure civile
Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005) - liquidation judiciaire - déclaration notariée d'insaisissabilité
Société (règles générales) - Associés - dividendes
Transports routiers
Cautionnement - Disproportion - Charge de la preuve
Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Déclaration des créances - Action en relevé de forclusion
Mesures d'instruction - Juge territorialement compétent
More (not much more) information is here. Guangjian Tu provided a Chinese perspective on the Convention ten years ago. Two other recent publications are in this context: Zheng Sophia Tang and Alison Lu Xu on Choice of Court Agreements in Electronic Consumer Contracts in China, and King Fung Tsang, Chinese Bilateral Judgment Enforcement Treaties, 40 Loy. L.A. Int’l. & Comp. L. Rev. 1 (2017) (only on heinonline).
For your second conflicts reading of the day I thought I should serve something more substantial. In A (an Austrian company) v M (a company located in Luxembourg) the Austrian Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof) had to decide on the determination of the locus delicti commissi in the event of infringement of copyright. M had effectively siphoned off to its website, some of A’s satellite broadcasts. Plenty of CJEU precedent is referred to (Hejduk; Austro Mechana; to name a few).
Thank you very much indeed Klaus Oblin for providing me with copy of the judgment – back in early June. Effectively, at issue was the infringement of a duty to pay. Klaus has excellent overview of the issues, of which the following are definitely worth highlighting. The Supreme Court justifiably of course emphasises autonomous interpretation of Article 7(2) Brussels I Recast. Yet autonomous interpretation does not provide all the answers. There are plenty of instances where locus delicti commissi is not easily identified, such as here.
The Oberster Gerichtshof seeks support in the Satellite Directive 93/83, but notes that the Directive includes no procedural clauses, let alone any regarding international jurisdiction (at 2.4.2. It refers to the German Bundesgerichtshof’s decision in Oscar). It then completes the analysis by reference to national law:
Section 42b(1) of the Act on Copyrights and Related Rights to classify breach of copyright as a tort (CJEU Kalfelis would have been a more correct reference) ; and
Section 907a(1) of the Civil Code) to identify the locus of the delicti commissi: because monetary debts in acordance with that section must be discharged at the seat of the creditor, the domestic courts at the Austrian seat of the collecting society have jurisdiction. In coming to its conclusion, the court (at 3.2) refers pro inspiratio to Austro Mechana, not just the CJEU’s judgment but also the ensuing national judgment.
Now, lest I am mistaken, in Austro Mechana the CJEU did not identify the locus delicti commissi: it simply qualified the harm arising from non-payment by Amazon of the remuneration provided for in Austrian law, as one in tort: at 52 of its judgment: it follows that, if the harmful event at issue in the main proceedings occurred or may occur in Austria, which is for the national court to ascertain, the courts of that Member state have jurisdiction to entertain Austro-Mechana’s claim. (emphasis added)
Given its heavy reliance on national law, I would suggest the judgment skates on thin ice. Reference to the CJEU seemingly was not contemplated but surely would have been warranted. Kainz is a case in point where locus delicti commissi was helpfully clarified by Luxembourg, Melzer one for locus damni.
Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private international Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 2, heading 2.2.11.2.
As I turn my attention to clearing the blog queue, a light posting to begin with. Kind of light, that is, because for the plaintiffs at issue of course the issue is not at all a laughing matter. I am assuming readers will be somewhat aware of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge having taken action against ‘Closer’ (more precisely, the publishers, SAS Mondadori), for invasion of privacy after photos appeared of the couple relaxing poolside in a French private residence. The photos were taken with sniper lenses some distance away. Like everyone else, I have not seen the photos.
Following an earlier injunction the couple have now been awarded damages. I have not managed to locateactual text of either injunction (going back to 2012) or last week’s judgment on the substance of the matter. If any reader can assist, I would be most obliged.
I often use the case in my very introductory class of private international law for it illustrates a wide plethora of conflicts issues: why did the couple decide to sue in France rather than England where it easily would have standing; how do the injunction proceedings in particular illustrate enforcement issues; where do Gleichlauf, forum shopping etc. come in. I will not reveal all the ifs and buts here for it would spoil the fun for future classes. Conflicts buffs will see the attraction of the case for teaching purposes.
Geert.
La grande chambre de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne (CJUE) rejette entièrement les recours en annulation présentés par la Hongrie et la Slovaquie visant à annuler le dispositif provisoire mis en place par le Conseil afin de relocaliser les demandeurs d’asile arrivant en Grèce et en Italie.
On the occasion of the 80th birthday of Jürgen Samtleben, a Symposium will be held on 6 and 7 October 2017 at the Max-Planck-Institute in Hamburg, under the title: Focus Latin America — International Conflicts and Legal Order.
There will be presentations in German, Spanish, and Portuguese.
Registration is free, and due until 15 September 2017, through e-mail: veranstaltungen@mpipriv.de.
The program is available here.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer