Agrégateur de flux

Meik Thöne has authored a book on the abolition of exequatur proceedings under the new Brussels I-Regulation (“Die Abschaffung des Exequaturverfahrens und die EuGVVO”, Mohr Siebeck, 2016, IX + 289 pages). The volume is forthcoming  in German. A German abstract is available on the publisher’s website.

 

 

Schlechtriem & Schwenzer: Commentary on the UN Convention on the International Sale of Goods, a cura di Ingeborg Schwenzer, Oxford University Press, 2016, ISBN 9780198723264, pp. 1728, GBP 265.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Now in force in over 80 countries, the Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG) is one of the most successful and wide-reaching attempts to unify legal instruments for international commerce. As global sales transactions increase, the CISG’s range of influence in international practice has significantly expanded, potentially governing 80% of world trade. In addition to the growing case law, the volume of case law reporting and scholarly writing on the Convention and its provisions and problems has increased dramatically. The Convention also continues to influence legislators on the international as well as the domestic level. This is the fourth edition in English of the Commentary on the United Nations (UN) Convention on the International Sale of Goods (CISG). Since the publication of the first edition in 1998, the book has become an invaluable source for the comprehension and discussion of the Convention, frequently cited by legal writers, tribunals, and courts all over the world. Thoroughly revised to reflect the growth and complexity of case law relating to the Convention, the book also considers new developments in the field of the CISG, particularly the accession of Brazil to the Convention. It also assesses all relevant scholarly writing on the CISG since 2009, with a special emphasis on the opinions issued by the CISG Advisory Council that are being considered as persuasive authority by courts and tribunals across the globe.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Etat - Etat étranger - Immunité d'exécution

Etranger

Divorce - Loi applicable - Règlement CE n° 4/2009 du 18 décembre 2008

Régimes matrimoniaux

Secret professionnel ; Cour d'assises

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour d’annuler l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube en tant que marque de l’Union

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour d’annuler l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube en tant que marque de l’Union

Simba Toys / EUIPO
Propriété intellectuelle et industrielle
L’avocat général Szpunar propose à la Cour d’annuler l’enregistrement de la forme du Rubik’s cube en tant que marque de l’Union

Geert Van Calster, European Private International Law, 2a ed., Hart Publishing, 2016, ISBN 9781849466721, pp. 576, GBP 32.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Usable both as a student textbook and as a general introduction for legal professionals, European Private International Law is designed to reflect the reality of legal practice throughout the EU. This second edition provides a thorough, up-to-date overview of core European private international law, in particular the Brussels I, Rome I and Rome II Regulations (jurisdiction, applicable law for contracts and tort), while additional chapters deal with private international law and insolvency, freedom of establishment, corporate social responsibility and finally a review of two Regulations in the family law arena: Brussels II bis (matrimonial matters and parental responsibility) and the EU Succession Regulation.

Il sommario del volume può leggersi qui. Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

The CJEU has in my view taken the sensible approach in C-366/13 Profit Investment Sim, on (among others) whether choice of court included in a bond prospectus, binds not just the original transactional parties but also the buyers of such bonds on the secondary markets or via intermediaries. (An issue which many of us pondered in Kolassa but which was not sub judice there).

Parties at issue were Commerzbank (formerly Dresdner), the bond issuer; Redi, financial intermediary licensed by the UK FSA and subscriber of all relevant bonds on the primary market; and Profit, an Italian company, who bought part of the bonds of Redi, on the secondary market. Dresdner’s prospectus contains choice of court in favour of the English courts.

First, on the issue of the jurisdiction clause. The referring court asks, in essence, whether Article 23(1)(a) and (c) of Regulation 44/2001 (both now part of Article 25) must be interpreted as meaning that a jurisdiction clause, such as that at issue in the main proceedings, satisfies the formal requirements laid down in Article 23(1)(a) [‘in writing or evidenced in writing’] where (i) it is contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds, (ii) it is enforceable against third parties who acquire those bonds through a financial intermediary and (iii), in the event that the first two parts of the second question are answered in the negative, it corresponds to a usage in the field of international trade or commerce for the purpose of Article 23(1)(c).

Choice of court in the prospectus and the impact on the primary market.

The Court first of all holds that the ‘formal requirement’ of (now Article 25 a (a) ”in writing or evidenced in writing’ for the issue of choice of court between Dresdner and Redi is only met (along the lines of Colzani Case 24/76) if the contract signed by the parties upon the issue of the bonds on the primary market expressly mentions the acceptance of the clause by Redi, or contains an express reference to the prospectus. The latter in particular is quite likely.

Choice of court in the prospectus and enforceability against third parties acquiring through a financial intermediary.

Next, the Court (at 30) holds that the same two alternatives apply for the relationship between Redi and Profit. Here the court refers to Refcomp and  distinguishes it, basically by pointing to the specific examples of bills of lading and choice of court in shareholders registries, cases in which the CJEU had previously accepted transferability of choice of court to third parties, in specific circumstances. (Please refer to both the Refcomp judgment and to current judgment (at 33 ff) for detail).

The Court consequently held (at 37) that choice of court contained in a prospectus produced by the bond issuer concerning the issue of bonds may be relied on against a third party who acquired those bonds from a financial intermediary if it is established, which it is for the referring court to verify, that (i) that clause is valid in the relationship between the issuer and the financial intermediary, (ii) the third party, by acquiring those bonds on the secondary market, succeeded to the financial intermediary’s rights and obligations attached to those bonds under the applicable national law, and (iii) the third party had the opportunity to acquaint himself with the prospectus containing that clause. (Emphasis added).

The emphasis I added is quite important: the CJEU does not hold that such succession is somehow part of an EU Ius Commune.

Finally, if the answer to the first two questions is negative, is there usage in international trade or commercial custom between the parties? 

This, the Court holds, has to be determined by the national court. The CJEU (at 48) recalls its earlier case-law in particular C-106/95 MSG:  actual or presumed awareness of a usage on the part of the parties may be made out, in particular, by showing either that the parties had previously had commercial or trade relations between themselves or with other parties operating in the sector in question, or that, in that sector, a particular course of conduct is sufficiently well known because it is generally and regularly followed when a particular type of contract is concluded, so that it may be regarded as being an established practice.

The Court does though give a few more practical things which the national court needs to look out for: at 49. In order to determine, in the main proceedings, whether the insertion into the prospectus of a jurisdiction clause constitutes a usage in the sector in which the parties operate, of which those parties were aware or ought to have been aware, the referring court must take into account, inter alia, the fact that that prospectus was approved in advance by the Irish Stock Exchange and made available to the public on the latter’s website, which does not seem to have been contested by Profit in the proceedings on the merits. In addition, the referring court must take account of the fact that it is undisputed that Profit is a company active in the field of financial investments as well as of any commercial relationships it may have had in the past with the other parties to the main proceedings. The national court must also verify whether the issue of bonds on the market is, in that sector, generally and regularly accompanied by a prospectus containing a jurisdiction clause and whether that practice is sufficiently well known to be regarded as ‘established’.

 

Lest one forgets, the Court’s judgment is also relevant for a more general query on the nature of (now) Article 7(1): must the action seeking the annulment of a contract and the restitution of the amounts paid on the basis of a document the nullity of which is established, be regarded as ‘matters relating to a contract’ (the existence of which plaintiff seeks to dispute)? Yes, it does: if only (at 54) to ensure that Article 7(1) cannot simply be torpedoed by one party claiming that there is no contract.

(The judgment also reviews the conditions of application of (now) Article 8(1), with respect to ‘irreconcilability’ of judgments).

This judgment is quite relevant in yet again the CJEU having to defer to national law on the issue of transferability (see the emphasis I added, above). The Court very clearly does not wish to overplay its hand in trying to force a European Ius Commune in private law, via the use of private international law.

Geert.

(Handbook of) European Private International Law Chapter 2, Heading 2.2.11.1; Heading 2.2.11.1.a; 2.2.9.3;.2.2.9.7; 2.2.12

 

 

Une avocate espagnole a saisi la cour européenne des droits de l’homme (CEDH) concernant l’interdiction du port du hijab devant une juridiction, mais sa requête a été déclarée irrecevable, faute d’épuisement des voies de recours internes.

en lire plus