Agrégateur de flux

The “Cross-Border Litigation in Europe” conference is organised by the Centre for Business Law and Practice, University of Leeds, and the Centre for Private International Law, the University of Aberdeen. The conference is being held within the framework of a research project which is funded by the European Commission Civil Justice Programme.

The event will take place in the London School of Economics (New Academic Building, Lincoln’s Inn Field) on Thursday 16th June and Friday 17th June 2016.

The research study aims to consider whether the Member States’ courts and the CJEU can appropriately deal with the cross-border issues arising under the current EU Civil Justice framework. The project, which is coordinated by Professor Paul Beaumont from the University of Aberdeen, involves Dr Katarina Trimmings and Dr Burcu Yuksel from the University of Aberdeen, Dr Mihail Danov from the University of Leeds (UK), Prof. Dr. Stefania Bariatti from the University of Milan (Italy), Prof. Dr. Jan von Hein from the University of Freiburg (Germany), Prof. Dr. Carmen Otero from Complutense University of Madrid (Spain), Prof. Dr. Thalia Kruger from the University of Antwerp (Belgium), Dr Agnieszka Frackowiak-Adamska from the University of Wroclaw (Poland).

This conference is free to attend, but prior registration is required.

Programme

16th June 2016
9:00 am – 9:30 am
Paul Beaumont (Aberdeen), Mihail Danov (Leeds), Katarina Trimmings (Aberdeen) and Burcu Yuksel (Aberdeen) Evaluating the Effectiveness of the EU Civil Justice Framework: Research Objectives and Preliminary Research Findings from Great Britain

9:30 am – 11:00 am – Cross-Border Civil and Commercial Disputes: Legislative Framework
Chair: Paul Beaumont (Aberdeen)
1) Sophia Tang (Newcastle), Cross-Border Contractual Disputes: The Legislative Framework and Court Practice
2) Michael Wilderspin (European Commission, Legal Services), Cross-Border Non-Contractual Disputes: The Legislative Framework and Court Practice
3) Jon Fitchen (Aberdeen), The Unharmonised Procedural Rules: Is there a case for further harmonisation at EU level?
4) Stephen Dnes (Dundee), Economic considerations of the cross-border litigation pattern

15-minute break

11.15 am – 12.30 pm – Cross-Border Civil and Commercial Disputes: Practical Aspects
Chair: Mihail Danov (Leeds)
1) Peter Hurst (39 Essex Chambers), Litigation Costs: Cross-Border Disputes in England and Wales
2) Susan Dunn (Harbour), Litigation Funders and Cross-Border Disputes
3) Craig Pollack (King & Wood Mallesons), Cross-Border Contractual Disputes: Litigants’ Strategies and Settlement Dynamics
4) Jon Lawrence (Freshfields), Cross-Border Competition Law Damages Actions: Litigants’ Strategies and Settlement Dynamics

Lunch (12.30 pm – 1.30 pm)

1.30 pm – 3.00 pm – Cross-Border Family Disputes
Chair: Thalia Kruger (Antwerp)
1) Paul Beaumont (Aberdeen), Brussels IIa recast – a comment on the Commission’s Proposal from a member of the Commission’s Expert Group
2) Elizabeth Hicks (Irwin Mitchell), Litigants’ strategies and settlement dynamics in cross-border matrimonial disputes
3) Marcus Scott-Manderson QC (4 Paper Buildings), Cross-Border Disputes Involving Children: A View from the English Bar
4) Lara Walker (Sussex), Maintenance and child support: PIL Aspects
5) Rachael Kelsey (SKO), Arbitration and ADR: Cross-Border Family Law Disputes

15-minute break

3.15 pm – 4.45 pm – National Reports: Cross-Border Litigation in Europe
Chair: Stefania Bariatti (Milan)
1) Professor Bea Verschraegen (Universität Wien) and Florian Heindler, Preliminary Research Findings from Austria
2) Dr Teodora Tsenova and Dr Anton Petrov, Preliminary Research Findings from Bulgaria
3) Doc. Dr. Ivana Kunda, Preliminary Research Findings from Croatia
4) Professor JUDr Monika Pauknerová, Jiri Grygar and Marta Zavadilová, Preliminary Research Findings from Czech Republic
5) Professor Nikitas Hatzimihail (University of Cyprus), Preliminary Research Findings from Cyprus
6) Professor Peter Arnt Nielsen (Copenhagen Business School), Preliminary Research Findings from Denmark

15-minute break

5.00 pm – 6.15 pm – National Reports: Cross-Border Litigation in Europe
Chair: Jan von Hein (Freiburg)
1) Maarja Torga (University of Tartu), Preliminary Research Findings from Estonia
2) Gustaf Möller (Krogerus) Preliminary Research Findings from Finland
3) Professor Horatia Muir Watt (Science Po), Professor Jeremy Heymann (Lyon) and Professor Laurence Usunier (Cergy-Pontoise), Preliminary Research Findings from France
4) Aspasia Archontaki and Paata Simsive, Preliminary Research Findings from Greece
5) Dr Csongor Nagy (University of Szeged), Preliminary Research Findings from Hungary

7.00 pm – 10.30 pm Dinner (by invite only) – Old Court Room, Lincoln’s Inn
Speech by Lord Justice Vos (Court of Appeal and President of the European Network of Councils for the Judiciary), The Effect of the European Networks of Councils for the Judiciary (ENCJ) on Cross-Border Dispute Resolution

17th June 2016
8.30 am – 10:00 am – National Reports: Cross-Border Litigation in Europe
Chair: Carmen Otero (Madrid)
1) Maebh Harding (Warwick), Preliminary Research Findings from Ireland
2) Dr Irena Kucina (Ministry of Justice, Latvia), Preliminary Research Findings from Latvia
3) Kristina Praneviciene, Preliminary Research Findings from Lithuania
4) Céline Camara (Max Planck Istitute), Preliminary Research Findings from Luxembourg
5) Clement Mifsud-Bonnici, Preliminary Research Findings from Malta
6) Professor Aukje van Hoek (Universiteit van Amsterdam), Preliminary Research Findings from the Netherlands

15-minute break

10.15 am – 11.30 am – National Reports: Cross-Border Litigation in Europe
Chair: Agnieszka Frackowiak-Adamska (Wroclaw)
1) Professor Elsa Oliveira (Universidade de Lisboa), Preliminary Research Findings from Portugal
2) Dr Ileana Smeureanu (Jones Day, Paris), Lucian Ilie (Lazareff Le Bars) and Ema Dobre (CJEU) Preliminary Research Findings from Romania
3) Doc JUDr M. Duris, JUDr M Vozaryova, Dr M Burdova, Preliminary Research Findings from Slovakia
4) Professor Suzana Kraljic, Preliminary Research Findings from Slovenia
5) Professor Michael Bogdan and Ulf Maunsbach, Preliminary Research Findings from Sweden

15-minute break

11.45 am – 1.00 pm – National Reports: Cross-Border Litigation in Europe
Chair: Alex Layton QC
1) Thalia Kruger (Antwerp) and Eline Ulrix (Antwerp), Preliminary Research Findings from Belgium
2) Jan Von Hein (Freiburg), Preliminary Research Findings from Germany
3) Stefania Bariatti (Milan), Preliminary Research Findings from Italy
4) Agnieszka Frackowiak-Adamska, Agnieszka Guzewicz and ?ukasz Petelski (Wroclaw), Preliminary Research Findings from Poland
5) Carmen Otero (Madrid), Preliminary Research Findings from Spain

Lunch (1.00 pm – 2.00 pm)

2.00 pm – 3.30 pm – Shaping the development of the EU PIL Framework
Chair: Paul Beaumont (Aberdeen)
1) Jacek Garstka (EU Commission, DG Justice), Drafting Legislative Instruments in a Diverse Union 2) Pascale Hecker (Référendaire, CJEU), Cross-Border Litigation: Challenges for EU Judiciary
3) Lady Justice Black (Head of International Family Justice), International Family Justice: Challenges in an EU context
4) Paul Torremans (Nottingham), Cross-Border IP Disputes: Specific Issues and Solutions

15-minute break

3.45 pm – 4:30 pm – The way the EU PIL framework is shaping the litigants’ strategies in a cross-border context
Chair: Mihail Danov (Leeds)
1) Alex Layton QC (20 Essex Chambers), Cross-Border Civil and Commercial Disputes: PIL issues – a view from the English Bar
2) Christopher Wagstaffe QC (29 Bedford Row), Cross-Border Matrimonial Disputes: PIL issues – a view from the English Bar
3) Sophie Eyre (Bird & Bird), Remedies and Recoveries in a Cross-Border Context

4:30 – 5:30 pm – The Way Forward: The research partners’ views
1) Thalia Kruger (Antwerp) and Eline Ulrix (Antwerp), Preliminary Views from Belgium
2) Jan Von Hein (Freiburg), Preliminary Views from Germany
3) Stefania Bariatti (Milan), Preliminary Views from Italy
4) Agnieszka Frackowiak-Adamska, Agnieszka Guzewicz and ?ukasz Petelski (Wroclaw), Preliminary Views from Poland
5) Carmen Otero (Madrid), Preliminary Views from Spain
6) Paul Beaumont (Aberdeen), Mihail Danov (Leeds), Katarina Trimmings (Aberdeen) and Burcu Yuksel, Addressing the Challenges: Is there a case for Reform?

QPC

Atteinte à l'autorité de l'Etat

The much awaited decision Avotinš v. Latvia of the Grand Chamber of the ECtHR was finally delivered yesterday. The decision can be found here. A video of the delivery is also available.

The European Court of Human Rights held by a majority that there had been no violation of Article 6 § 1 (right to a fair hearing) of the European Convention on Human Rights. The Court reiterated that, when applying European Union law, the Contracting States remained bound by the obligations they had entered into on acceding to the European Convention on Human Rights. Those obligations were to be assessed in the light of the presumption of equivalent protection established by the Court in the Bosphorus judgment and developed in the Michaud judgment. The Court did not consider that the protection of fundamental rights had been manifestly deficient  such that the presumption of equivalent protection was rebutted in the case at hand.

While at first sight the decision comes as a relief for all those who have been holding breath, fearing the worst after the CJEU Opinion 2/13, a careful reading (immediately undertaken by the academia: the exchange of emails has already started here in Luxembourg) reveals some potential points of friction. Following the advice of both Patrick Kinsch and Christian Kohler I would like to draw your attention in particular to para. 113-116.

Judge Lemmens and Judge Briede expressed a joint concurring opinion and Judge Sajó expressed a dissenting opinion, all three annexed to the judgment.

De nouvelles garanties procédurales applicables aux personnes âgées de moins de 18 ans ont été adoptées par le Parlement européen et le Conseil, le 11 mai dernier.

en lire plus

Una sentenza del Tribunale di Bologna del 9 novembre 2015 tratta della legge applicabile alla donazione e alla ripetizione dell’indebito.

La controversia trae origine dall’erogazione di una somma di denaro da parte di una società con sede a Panama a favore di una persona fisica residente in Italia.

Nella prospettazione della società panamense, attrice in giudizio, tale somma avrebbe dovuto servire all’acquisto di un immobile sito in Italia per conto della stessa società, ma era stata trattenuta dal percipiente, senza titolo, ed utilizzata da questi per scopi personali; di qui la domanda di restituzione proposta al giudice italiano.

Il convenuto, per parte sua, contestava la fondatezza della pretesa attorea, affermando che la somma gli era stata versata in adempimento di un’obbligazione naturale, o comunque a titolo di donazione, rilevando che la dazione aveva per sfondo la lunga relazione sentimentale che lo aveva legato all’amministratrice della società panamense.

Ritenuta la propria giurisdizione e sollecitato il contraddittorio sulla questione della legge applicabile nelle forme dell’art. 101, comma 2°, del codice di procedura civile, il Tribunale di Bologna considera, dapprima, l’ipotesi che la fattispecie integri un caso di ripetizione dell’indebito e ritiene, a tal fine, di poter fare riferimento all’art. 61 della legge 31 maggio 1995, n. 218, di riforma del sistema italiano di diritto internazionale privato, in tema di obbligazioni nascenti dalla legge, ricavandone l’applicabilità della legge italiana, quale “legge dello Stato in cui si è verificato il fatto da cui deriva l’obbligazione”.

La sentenza, per la verità, non prende espressamente posizione circa la possibile applicabilità ratione temporis del regolamento n. 864/2007 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni extracontrattuali (c.d. Roma II), e in particolare del suo art. 10, relativo all’arricchimento senza causa. Si legge in motivazione, peraltro, che anche “a considerare la fattispecie come ‘illecito’, secondo la specifica nozione dell’articolo 2 [del regolamento c.d.Roma II], si avrebbe comunque applicazione del diritto italiano, essendosi la fattispecie conclusa con l’arrivo del bonifico” nella disponibilità del convenuto, in Italia.

Individuata in questo modo la legge ipoteticamente applicabile al pagamento di indebito, il Tribunale si interroga in ordine alla sussistenza o meno di un titolo che giustifichi il trasferimento della somma di denaro in grado di escludere il diritto alla restituzione dell’indebito. Viene innanzitutto osservato che la causa del pagamento non può consistere in un’obbligazione naturale — come avanzato dalla convenuta — atteso che “la imputazione della liberalità è in capo alla società attrice [che], per ovvie ragioni, non può avere avuto un rapporto sentimentale” e che, pertanto, “non è possibile che essa abbia avuto, nei confronti del [convenuto], obbligazioni naturali”.

Ritenendo, all’esito di questo riscontro, di non poter inquadrare la fattispecie nella categoria delle obbligazione naturale, il giudice passa ad analizzare la seconda ipotesi di qualificazione dedotta dalla convenuta, giungendo a scorgere nell’invio della somma di denaro una donazione.

Basandosi su questa qualificazione, il Tribunale bolognese identifica la norma di conflitto pertinente nell’art. 4, par. 2, del regolamento n. 593/2008 sulla legge applicabile alle obbligazioni contrattuali (Roma I), pervenendo così alla conclusione che la legge applicabile al rapporto litigioso è la legge panamense, non essendo dubbio — si legge nella  motivazione — “che la prestazione caratteristica della donazione sia quella del donante, che è panamense”.

Appurato che la donazione debba essere assoggettata alla legge panamense, il giudice accerta che essa è valida ed efficace in conformità alle norme di tale ordinamento. Pertanto, ritenuto nel merito che l’erogazione della somma fosse al tempo sorretta dalla causa della donazione, viene escluso il carattere indebito del pagamento, con conseguente rigetto della domanda.

Si ringrazia per la segnalazione l’avv. Claudio Pezzi.

Minori e immigrazione: quali diritti?, a cura di Caterina Fratea e Isolde Quadranti, Edizioni Scientifiche Italiane, 2015, ISBN: 9788849531008, pp. XIV+186, Euro 21.

Il volume, di cui è disponibile qui il sommario completo, affronta fra gli altri, con uno scritto di Maria Caterina Baruffi (Univ. Verona), i profili internazionalprivatistici della protezione dei minori, segnatamente alla luce della Convenzione dell’Aja del 19 ottobre 1996 sulla competenza il riconoscimento la legge applicabile l’esecuzione e la cooperazione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e protezione dei minori.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Un percorso tra i diritti – Scritti scelti di Bruno Nascimbene, Giuffrè, 2016, pp. XII + 806, ISBN: 9788814213946, Euro 95.

La raccolta è divisa in quattro sezioni, una delle quali è dedicata al Diritto internazionale privato e processuale nella dimensione europea.

L’indice completo può leggersi qui. Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Prof. Jean-Sylvestre Bergé, of Lyon, is the leading researcher of the long-term, multidisciplinary and comparative (and certainly challenging!) project giving title to this post. A summary of the project, which is funded by the Institut Universitaire de France, is provided below. More information can be found here; for an ssrn publication explaining the project click here.

Summary of the Research Project

The purpose of the research is to bring into the law a new legal concept in order to deal with the phenomenon called « full movement beyond control ».

Movement : persons (individuals or legal entities), goods (tangible or intangible, and more widely, services and capital) move within territories and between different territories. This movement has reached unprecedented dimension in recent times (notably for migrant, data, waste, capital) : the speed, diversity and often significant volume of flow have reached levels as yet unparalleled. Full : the movement of persons, goods, services and capital has a « full » dimension in that it engages the attention and action of all the public and private operators (States, companies, citizens) at local, national or international level, who contribute to the phenomenon in whole or in part, voluntarily or involuntarily. Beyond control : movement has an « uncontrollable » dimension in the sense that in specific or short-term situations, like those of crisis, operators, and particularly those with responsibility for such movement, do not have full control over it.

This movement beyond control results in the creation of positive and negative, legal and illegal channels within a particular sphere, making it almost possible for the operators to work together to contain it. Full movement beyond control is experiencing a paradoxical surge. More often than not, its existence is denied by those who claim to have the power to control it. However, it is putting existing frontiers at risk while simultaneously creating new ones. It is often backed up by a public whose collective conscience is shaped by a hope that regaining control is still a possibility.

By employing a multidisciplinary (Social sciences – Sciences) and comparative (Europe, Brazil, Canada) approach, this research project seeks to identify a new legal concept capable of specific legal treatment and competent to take in hand the particular issues raised by the phenomenon and the legitimate expectations it may create.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 7, 6e chambre de l'instruction, 29 avril 2014

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 7, 6e chambre de l'instruction, 17 septembre 2015

Nella cornice del ciclo di seminari Hybrid Legal Regimes, il Dipartimento di Studi giuridici dell’Università Bocconi di Milano ospita, il 25 maggio 2016, un incontro dal titolo Jurisprudence Unconfined: Legal Pluralism and the Conflict of Laws.

Dopo un’introduzione di Yane Svetiev (Univ. Bocconi), interverrà Horatia Muir Watt (SciencesPo), a cui si affiancheranno, come discussants, Alexis Galan e Kellen Trilha Schappo (Univ. Bocconi).

Le conclusioni sono affidate a Paola Mariani (Univ. Bocconi).

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Si intitola Le clausole di scelta del foro nei contratti internazionali un incontro formativo in programma a Torino il 10 giugno 2016, organizzato dall’Ordine degli Avvocati di Torino, con l’Union Internationale des Avocats e dal Dipartimento di Giurisprudenza dell’Università di Torino.

Gli interventi, preceduti da una relazione di Margherita Salvadori (Univ. Torino), sono affidati ad esponenti di studi legali di diversi paesi europei, sotto la moderazione di Paolo Lombardi (Studio legale ELEXI).

Il programma completo e maggiori informazioni si trovano qui.

When my tweets on the CJEU are not followed quickly by a blog post, assume I got snowed under. Or that other developments require more immediate analysis. Taser, Case C-175/15, is easily dismissed perhaps as not all that stunning or shocking (puns abound), yet as often, it is worthwhile highlighting what the case does not answer, rather than what it did elucidate.

Taser International, whose seat is in the United States, entered into two non-exclusive distribution agreements with Gate 4. Under those agreements, Gate 4 and its administrator, Mr Anastasiu, undertook to assign to the other contracting party the Taser International trade marks which they had registered, or for which they had applied for registration, in Romania.

Following Gate 4’s and Mr Anastasiu’s refusal to fulfil that contractual obligation, Taser International brought an action before the District Court, Bucharest. Regardless of the existence in those contracts of clauses conferring jurisdiction on a court situated in the US, Gate 4 and Mr Anastasiu entered an appearance before the Romanian court without challenging its jurisdiction. The Court ordered them to undertake all the formalities necessary for the registration of the assignment.

The appeals court seeks clarification as to whether the Brussels I Regulation is applicable to the dispute before it, since the parties elected, for the resolution of their disputes, the courts of a third country. The referring court considers that such a clause conferring jurisdiction on a third country may, for this reason alone, preclude the tacit prorogation of jurisdiction under Article 24 (Article 26 in the Brussels I Recast). 

On the assumption, however, that that latter rule is applicable, the referring court seeks to ascertain whether it should, nevertheless, decline jurisdiction on another ground. It also queried whether the exclusive jurisdictional rules of Article 22 are applicable: does a dispute concerning an obligation to assign a trade mark, likely to result in a registration under national law, fall within paragraph 4 of that article.

The CJEU firstly recalled its finding in C-111/09 CPP Vienna Insurance Group: choice of court made per Article 23 (now Article 25) Brussels I, can be overruled by voluntary appearance. The latter in that case simply acts as an amended choice of court. In Taser (at 24) the court now adds that this applies also if that initial choice of court was made ex-EU. The deliberate, later choice, remains a deliberate choice. The Court makes no reference to discussions e.g.  in the context of Gothaer, whether the Brussels I Regulation at all should be concerned with choice of court ex-EU or should be entirely indifferent. Arguably, in the Recast Regulation, there is consideration for choice of court ex-EU, in particular in recital 24 combined with Article 33.

Intellectual property lawyers will be disappointed with the Court’s answer to the issue of whether trade mark assignment falls within Article 22(4) [now 24(4)]: Romanian courts in any event had jurisdiction. (at 29).

Plenty left open, therefore. Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, 2nd ed. 2016, chapter 2, heading 2.2.6.7, heading 2.2.7 .

Douze prévenus et deux sociétés comparaissent devant la 32e chambre correctionnelle de Paris pour escroquerie en bande organisée et blanchiment dans une affaire de fraude à la TVA sur le marché des quotas d’émissions de carbone. Le procès porte sur un détournement de 283 millions d’euros

en lire plus

Assurance de personne

Assurance de personne