Agrégateur de flux

The Belgian Council of State, chamber of legislation (in the title I call it a ‘parliamentary watchdog: for that is what it is. By issuing prior opinions on the legality of legislative initiative it guards against illegal Statute) has opined that a private members bill banning unstunned slaughter, does not pass the ECHR test.

A European Regulation (1099/2009) provides for an unclear, and conditional,  exemption for religious (regularly rather offendingly called ‘ritual’) slaughter. Practised in particular by the Jewish (Shechita; leading to ‘kosher’ meat) and Muslim (Zabihah; with halal meat) faith, a core aspect of the practice is that animals are not stunned prior to slaughter. The science on the effect of stunned or unstunned slaugther is  unequivocal, and most certainly neither stunned nor unstunned slaughter, when carried out incorrectly (well documented in the case of stunned slaughter) does not aid the welfare of the animal.

Religious slaughter falls squarely within the European Convention of Human Rights Article 9’s freedom of religious expression. Hence the Council of State summarily (its conciseness is rather attractive) reviews the ECtHR’s case-law and concludes that the proposed ban would be both unconstitutional and clearly against the provisions of the ECHR. On the EU Regulation front, I believe the EU rules are more problematic than the Opinion suggests (I have analysis on it forthcoming) however on the ECHR side of things, the Opinion could not be more correct. An outright ban on unstunned slaughter in the name of animal welfare or otherwise would offend freedom of religious expression to such a degree that it simply must not pass.

Geert.

La Cour de cassation, à propos de la vente de matériels de l’Allemagne vers la France, refuse d’appliquer la Convention de New York du 14 juin 1974 sur la prescription en matière de vente internationale de marchandises à la prescription de l’action en responsabilité de l’acheteur contre le vendeur, faute pour ces deux États d’avoir ratifié cette Convention. 

en lire plus

Officiers publics ou ministériels ; Avoué

Genentech
Concurrence
Le bénéficiaire d’une licence de brevet doit payer la redevance convenue même s’il ne contrefait pas la technologie brevetée

Tommy Hilfiger Licensing e.a.
Rapprochement des législations
L’exploitant d’une place de marché physique peut se voir contraint de faire cesser les infractions commises par les marchands en matière de marque

« La révision au fond est interdite au juge de l’exequatur ».

en lire plus

Bien que les recours exercés aient été effectifs, si les autorités françaises décidaient de mettre à exécution la décision de renvoi de la requérante menacée de mauvais traitements par sa famille en Guinée, il y aurait violation de l’article 3 de la Convention européenne des droits de l’homme. 

en lire plus

Filiation

Engagement solennel devant la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne de nouveaux membres de la Cour des comptes européenne

For the facts of the case, and the reasoning of the AG in C-559/14 Meroni, I refer to my earlier posting. At the end of May (I am indeed still hoovering up the queue) the Court held very much alongside Kokott AG’s Opinion, I shall therefore not repeat its reasoning here. The CJEU does insist that if third parties rights are directly affected with the intensity as in the case at issue, that third person must be entitled to assert his rights before the court of origin (which English courts provide for), lest one runs the risk of the injunction being refused recognition under ordre public. As I had feared, the Court does not address the AG’s concern whether Mareva orders actually constitute a ‘judgment’ for the purposes of the Regulation.

Post Brexit, this considerable attraction of English courts in interlocutory proceedings might become a lot less real. (Like many of us, I am working on a short review of Brexit consequences for European private international law).

Geert.

(Handbook of) European private international law, second ed. 2016, Chapter 2, 2.2.16.1.1, 2.2.16.1.4