Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel
503 pour, 131 contre et 18 abstentions. Une très large majorité du Parlement européen a adopté, jeudi 14 avril 2016, la directive dite sur le « secret des affaires ».
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: NéantPour la protection de la procédure pénale et la sauvegarde de la vie privée du prévenu, les limites posées à l’exercice du droit à la liberté d’expression d’un journaliste ayant publié un article relatif à une affaire judiciaire en cours, n’ont pas conduit à la violation de l’article 10, § 1, de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme.
En carrousel matière: Oui Matières OASIS: Néantby Veerle Van den Eeckhout
On the blog section of the Dutch journal Nederlands Juristenblad, a blog of Veerle Van Den Eeckhout on the Proposal for a revision of the Posting Directive has been published, see here.
The blog is entitled “Modellering van internationaal privaatrecht – Een enkele ipr-technische aantekening bij het voorstel tot wijziging van de Detacheringsrichtlijn” (in English: “Modelling Private International Law. A single PIL-technical note on the proposed revision of the Posting Directive”). It is written in Dutch.
The blog focuses on a single technical PIL-aspect of the proposed revision of the Posting Directive; at the end, however, the issue is placed in a broader context of ongoing dynamics and debates in private international law – see also already on this the blog “The impact and potential of a curious and unique discipline. About PIL, Shell Nigeria, European and global competition and social justice”, published also on the blog section of the NJB-site, see here , available in English on http://conflictoflaws.net/2015/on-pil-international-labour-law-and-corporate-social-responsibility/.
Assurance - Agent général - Cessation des fonctions
The topic of the 28th Conference of Private International Law of the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law, organised in cooperation with the Faculty of Law of the University of Neuchâtel, is Les banques et les assurances face aux tiers et les nouveautés en matière de faillite internationale.
The conference will take place in Lausanne on 27th May 2016.
The morning session will present recent developments in international bankruptcy, with a particular focus on the draft revision of the Swiss Federal Act on Private International Law, the practical impact of bankruptcy on civil proceedings and arbitration, as well as issues of international bankruptcy in banking.
The afternoon session will address legal relationships that involve three parties, focusing in particular on the situation of banks and insurance companies vis-à-vis third parties. Recent developments in Switzerland and the EU will be examined, including the issue of third party’s right to obtain banking information in the context of successions.
Presentations will be in French and English.
For the full program please see here. Registrations at news@isdc.ch.
The following information have kindly been provided by Prof. Dr. Matthias Lehmann, University of Bonn.
Bank resolution is key to avoiding a repetition of the global financial crisis in which failing financial institutions had to be bailed out with taxpayers’ money. It permits recapitalizing banks or alternatively winding them down in an orderly fashion without creating systemic risk. Resolution measures, however, suffer from a structural weakness. They are taken by nation-states with territorially limited powers, yet they target entities or groups with global activities and assets in many countries. Under traditional rules of private international law, these activities and assets are governed by the law of other states which is beyond the remit of the state undertaking the resolution.
Matthias Lehmann (University of Bonn) addresses this problem in a recent paper titled “Bail-in and Private International Law: How to Make Bank Resolution Measures Effective Across Borders”. He illustrates the conflict between resolution and private international law by using the example of the European Union, where the limitations of cross-border issues are most acutely felt. He explains the techniques and mechanisms provided in the Bank Recovery and Resolution Directive (BRRD) and the Single Resolution Mechanism (SRM) Regulation to make resolution measures effective in intra-Eurozone cases, in intra-EU conflicts with non-Euro Member States and in relation to conflicts with third countries. Besides this, he also throws light on the divergences and flaws in the BRRD’s transposition into national law. In this context, he discusses two recent cases, Goldman Sachs International v Novo Banco SA [2015] EWHC 2371 (Comm), and BayernLB v Hypo Alpe Adria (HETA case) Regional Court, Munich I, judgment of 8 May 2015, that have dealt with the recognition of foreign resolution acts. A brief overview of third-country regimes furthermore highlights the problems in obtaining recognition of EU resolution measures abroad.
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer