The European Commission today published the Proposal for the Brussels IIbis Recast and issued a press release.
There are no changes to jurisdiction in divorce matters, but quite a few significant ones on parental responsibility.
The Proposed Regulation clearly seeks to enhance children’s rights, referring explicitly to the EU’s Charter of Fundamental Rights and to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (see recitals 13 and 23). It also introduces a separate provision on the obligation for courts to give children the opportunity to be heard (Art. 20).
Furthermore the Proposal aims to improve the efficacy of return proceedings after international parental child abduction. It requires Member States to concentrate the local jurisdiction for these procedures on a limited number of courts (Art. 22) and to limit the number of appeals to one (Art. 25(4)). It clarifies that the six-weeks time frame applies to each instance (Art. 23(1)). Courts will also have to examine the possibility of mediation and agreed solutions without losing time (Art. 23(2)).
As expected, the Commission seeks to abolish exequatur proceedings for all parental responsibility cases (Art. 30). The proposal contains a mechanism to request the refusal of recognition or enforcement (Arts. 40-42). This is similar to the route eventually taken in Brussels Ibis (Regulation 1215/2012).
There are many other proposed changes, on issues such as provisional measures, cooperation, the resourcing of Central Authorities, the placement of children in another Member State and a better coordination with the 1996 Hague Child Protection Convention, but I will leave the reader to discover them.
Arbitrage
Contrat de travail, rupture
Cour d'appel de Rennes, Chambre spéciale des mineurs, 17 juin 2016
Tribunal de grande instance de Fort de France, Commission d'indemnisation des victimes d'infractions, 17 juin 2016
Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel
A new session within the series Seminario Julio D. González Campos, organized by the Department of Private International Law of the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid, will be held on July 8th, 2016, starting at 10:30 pm. The speaker will be Dr. Matthias Weller, Professor of Civil Law, Civil Procedural Law and Private International Law at the EBS Universität für Wirtschaft und Recht; he will address the topic “Mutual Trust: Still Corner Stone for Judicial Cooperation in Civil Matters after the Brexit?”
Venue: Seminar room V (4th Floor), Faculty of Law.
For further information please contact mariajesus.elvira@uam.es.
The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg, heading an international consortium, is undertaking a study, funded by the European Commission, aiming to assess the impact of domestic laws of civil procedure of the 28 Member States on mutual trust and the free circulation of judgements, as well as on the enforcement of consumer rights derived from EU law.
As a part of this project, a public consultation has been launched for gathering data and opinions among stakeholders.
Direct access to the two online questionnaires, which mirror the two separate strands of the study, are currently available (in six languages) here.
The Institute encourages consumers, lawyers, judges, academics, consumer protection associations, business/trade associations, dispute resolution facilitators, and those working in other legal professions to respond to both questionnaires.
For those wishing to offer further insights on any of the topics covered by the study, it will be possible to leave the contact details at the end of the survey so as to be contacted for an interview.
Le Premier ministre était à l’Assemblée nationale mardi 28 juin 2016 pour son premier discours officiel après le vote des Britanniques pour la sortie de l’Union Européenne. « Il faut respecter ce choix démocratique » reconnaît-il, tout en pressant le parlement britannique de déclencher l’article 50 « le plus tôt possible ».
Le délai raisonnable prévu par l’article 5, § 3, de la Convention européenne s’applique en matière d’extradition. La chambre criminelle juge par ailleurs sérieuse une QPC mettant en cause le régime du placement sous écrou extraditionnel.
Les conditions selon lesquelles, en cas de jugement par défaut, une créance est réputée « incontestée », au sens de l’article 3 du règlement du 21 avril 2004, portant création d’un titre exécutoire européen pour les créances incontestées, doivent être déterminées de manière autonome, en vertu de ce seul règlement.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer