Pourvoi c/ Tribunal d'instance de Dinan, 5 mai 2017
Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, chambre de l'instruction, 16e Chambre A, 12 juin 2017
Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 2, chambre 7, 15 décembre 2016
Santé publique - soins psychiatriques sans consentement
The CJEU held in C-185/15 Kostanjevec in October: I reported on the Opinion and the judgment then went under my radar.
On the issue of temporal applicability, the Court sides with the AG entirely, and I agree it should.
The Court then takes a firmly wide approach to the notion of ‘counterclaim’ in (now) Article 8(3): it is in the interests of the sound administration of justice that the special jurisdiction for counterclaims enables the parties, in the same proceedings and before the same court, to litigate all their claims against each other that have a common origin (at 37). In circumstances such as those of the main proceedings, the counterclaim for reimbursement on the ground of unjust enrichment must be regarded as arising from the leasing contract from which the lessor’s original action originated. The alleged enrichment in the amount of the sum paid in enforcement of the judgment that has since been set aside would not have taken place without that contract. (at 38).
‘Common origin’ of course is a notion which is difficult to decide in abstracto: despite the Court’s attempts to harmonise Article 8(3)’s approach, the potential for national courts to insert local approaches remain. Even the discussion of (now) Article 8(3) in the Jenard Report hinted at the provision being a difficult marriage between local civil procedure rules on the one hand and the need for European harmonisation on the other.
Geert.
(Handbook of) European Private International law, 2nd ed. 2016, chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1.a, Heading 2.2.21.3, Heading 2.1.1
Publicité foncière - Référé
Architecte entrepreneur
Majeur protégé - Durée de la mesure de protection renouvelée
It does not happen all that often: this is a call for assistance. Following a student’s Q re ‘habitual residence’ in Rome I, I have now noticed something I had not before (I more often than not use the English version of the Regulation in my teaching and practice): Article 6(1) on ‘consumer contracts’ uses the term ‘habitual residence’ ‘gewone verblijfplaats’ (defined, or not, for natural persons, in Article 19) in the introductory para (which identifies applicable law). However in littera a it then uses ‘domicile’ ‘woonplaats’: a term which is not otherwise used in Rome I and which is not defined by it.
A quick scan of other language versions (French, English, German) reveals no such error: they all use the equivalent of ‘habitual residence’ in both instances. Now, evidently the error must be pushed aside given the other language versions however: is any reader of the blog aware of a corrigendum ever published? For if it has, I cannot locate it.
Geert.
(Handbook of ) European Private International Law, 2nd ed. 2016, Chapter 3, Heading 3.2.5.
The European Parliament’s Policy Department for Citizens Rights and Constitutional Affairs of the is organising a workshop on Potential and challenges of private international law in the current migratory context on 20 June 2017 from 3 to 6.30 p.m.
The reason behind the initiative for this workshop is the tensions and overlaps between the areas of private international law and migration law. These overlaps have become more visible in the context of recent increases of migration. Issues include jurisdiction, cooperation between authorities, recognition of personal status, family tracing, child marriages, guardianship, kafala, the application of foreign law.
At the workshop two studies will be presented:
For those readers unable to come to Brussels, the studies are available here and the event will be livestreamed here.
Florian Heindler and Bea Verschraegen have just published the proceedings of the IACPIL conference which took place in October 2016 in Vienna: Internationale Bankgeschäfte mit Verbrauchern, Florian Heindler, Bea Verschraegen (Eds.), IACPIL (Interdisciplinary Association for Comparative and Private International Law) Series 5, Jan Sramek, 2017, 201 pp. ISBN 978-3-7097-0140-9
English translation of the Table of Contents:
See: http://www.jan-sramek-verlag.at/Buchdetails.411.0.html?buchID=278&cHash=299ec37e58
Entreprise en difficulté (Loi du 26 juillet 2005) - Intérêt collectif -
Actions tendant à la protection et à la reconstitution
du gage commun des créanciers
Cautionnement - Conditions de validité -
Cautionnements consentis par acte authentique
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer