La Cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) souligne que l’absence de précédent jurisprudentiel applicable à la situation des requérants accompagnée de doutes quant aux perspectives de succès d’un recours donné ne justifie pas la non-utilisation des voies de recours internes.
Selon l’avocat général de la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne Szpunar, le service UberPop n’est pas un service de la société de l’information et relève du domaine des transports. La France pouvait interdire et réprimer pénalement l’exercice de cette activité sans notifier préalablement le texte de la loi à la Commission.
Le Premier ministre et le ministre chargé de l’environnement devront établir des plans de qualité de l’air dans treize zones du territoire pour parvenir à contenir la pollution.
Dans l’intérêt de la sécurité juridique et de la facilité des contrôles, le critère décisif pour la classification tarifaire des marchandises doit être recherché, d’une manière générale, dans leurs caractéristiques et propriétés objectives.
« Le prévenu ne peut prétendre être présent lors de l’examen médical de la victime par l’expert, compte tenu de son caractère intime », indique la chambre criminelle dans un arrêt du 27 juin 2017.
Over the course of the last decades the European legislature has adopted a total of 18 Regulations in the area of private international law (including civil procedure). The resulting substantial degree of legislative unification has been described as the first true Europeanisation of private international law and even as a kind of “European Choice of Law Revolution”. However, until today it is largely unclear whether the far-reaching unification of the “law on the books” has turned private international law into a truly European ”law in action”: To what extent is European private international law actually based on uniform European rules common to all Member States rather than on state treaties or instruments of enhanced cooperation? Is the way academics and practitioners analyse and interpret European private international law really different from previously existing domestic approaches to private international law? Or is the actual application and interpretation of European private international law rather still influenced or even dominated by national legal traditions, leading to a re-fragmentation of a supposedly uniform body of law?
In order to discuss these (and other) questions Jürgen Basedow (Max Planck Institute Hamburg), Jan von Hein (University of Freiburg), Eva-Maria Kieninger (University of Würzburg) and Giesela Rühl (University of Jena) will be hosting a conference in Berlin on 2/3 March 2018.
Registration will open later this year (We’ll keep you posted!). Here is the Programme:
How “European” is European Private International Law?
Friday, 2 March 2018
9.00 am Registration
9.30 am Welcome addresses: The Europeanisation of Private International Law
1st Part: Europeanness of Legal Sources
10.00 am The relationship between EU and international Private International Law instruments
10.45 am Discussion
11.15 am Coffee break
11.45 am The relationship between EU and Member State Private International Law
12.30 pm Discussion
1.00 pm Lunch break
2nd Part: Europeanness of Actual Court Practice
2.00 pm The application of European Private International Law and the ascertainment of foreign law
2.45 pm Discussion
3.15 pm Coffee break
3.45 pm The application of European Private International Law and the role of national judges
4.30 pm Discussion
5.00 pm The application of European Private International Law and the role of national court systems
5.45 pm Discussion
6.15 pm End of day 1
8.00 pm Conference dinner
Saturday, 3 March 2018
3rd Part: Europeanness of Academic Discourse and Legal Education
8.30 am National styles of academic discourse and their impact on European Private International Law
9.15 am Discussion
9.45 am Coffee break
10.15 am Overriding mandatory laws, public policy and European Private International Law
11.00 am Discussion
11.30 am Legal education and European Private International Law
12.15 pm Discussion
12.45 pm Lunch break
2.00 pm Panel discussion: The future of European Private International Law in theory and practice
4.00 pm Concluding remarks
4.15 pm End of conference
The EUFam’s Project’s Consortium is glad to announce that a new Report is available for download and consultation on the Project website.
The Report on Internationally-Shared Good Practices, drafted by the EUFam’s Team of the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law, is based on the outcomes of the International Exchange Seminar that was held at the Institute on 11-12 May 2017.
Over 80 experts – judges, practitioners, academics, EU policymakers, and national civil servants – took part to the lively discussion by sharing their knowledge, experiences, and views on the application of the existing EU PIL Regulations in family matters in their daily practice.
This new Report further enriches the set of tools offered by the Project’s Consortium to the wider public, such as the National Case-Law Database, the Additional ECtHR Case-Law Index, the First Assessment Report on the Collected Case-Law, the Report on the Outcomes of an Online Questionnaire circulated in the past months, and several reports on national good practices.
Website: www.eufams.unimi.it
Facebook page: www.facebook.com/eufams
Conventions internationales - Convention de La Haye du 25 octobre 1980
- aspects civils de l'enlèvement international d'enfants
Architecte entrepreneur
Travail réglementation, durée du travail- Repos et congés - Egalité
de traitement entre les hommes et les femmes
Etranger - Entrée en séjour irrégulier - Placement en garde à vue
Contrats et obligations conventionnelles - Contrats interdépendants - Caducité
Contrats et obligations conventionnelles - Contrats interdépendants - Résiliation de l'un des contrats
Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Responsabilités et sanctions - Action en responsabilité engagée par une caution contre une banque
Entreprise en difficulté (loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Pourvoi en cassation réservé au minstère public - Exception
Readers of our blog will recall that we posted a translation of the new German choice-of-law rule for agency last week. That translation, however, was misleading because it referred to the law “applicable to a contract between principal and agent”, thus implying that the provision applies to the agency contract itself. The provision, however, is only meant to fill the gap left by Article 1(2) lit. g) of the Rome I Regulation. It is, therefore, limited to the agent’s authority (granted by contract). We thank an attentive reader for making this point and offer the following revised translation of the newly adopted Article 8 of the German Introductory Law to the German Civil Code (Einführungsgesetz zum Bürgerlichen Gesetzbuch – BGB):
(1) An agent’s authority is governed by the law chosen by the principal before the agency is exercised, if the choice of law is known to both agent and third party. Principal, agent and third party are free to choose the applicable law at any time. The choice of law according to Sentence 2 of this Paragraph takes precedence over Sentence 1.
(2) In the absence of a choice under Paragraph 1 and if the agent acts in exercise of his commercial activity, a contract between principal and agent, is governed by the law of the country in which the agent has his habitual residence at the time he acted, unless this country is not identifiable by the third party.
(3) In the absence of a choice under Paragraph 1 and if the agent acts as employee of the principal, a contract between principal and agent is governed by the law of the country in which the principal has his habitual residence, unless this country is not identifiable by the third party.
(4) If the agent does not act in a way described by Paragraph 2 or 3 and in the absence of a choice under Paragraph 1, a permanent contract between principal and agent is governed by the law of the country, in which the agent usually exercises his powers, unless this country is not identifiable by the third party.
(5) If the applicable law does not result from Paragraph 1 through 4, a contract between principal and agent is governed by the law of the country in which the agent acts in exercise of his powers. If the third party and the agent must have been aware that the agency should only have been exercised in a particular country, the law of this country is applicable. If the country in which the agent acts in exercise of his powers is not identifiable by the third party, the law of the country in which the principal has his habitual residence at the time the agent exercises his powers, is applicable.
(6) The law applicable for agencies on the disposition of property or the rights on property is to be determined according to Article 43 Paragraph 1 and Article 46.
(7) This Article does not apply to agencies for exchange or auction.
(8) The habitual residence in accordance with this Article is to be determined in line with Article 19, Paragraph 1 and 2, first alternative of Regulation (EG) No. 593/2008, provided that the exercise of the agency replaces contract formation. Article 19, Paragraph 1 and 2, first alternative of Regulation (EG) No. 593/2008 does not apply, if the country according to that Article is not identifiable by the third party.
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 5-7, 28 février 2017
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer