Agrégateur de flux

On 17 March 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law decided to set up a Special Commission to prepare a draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (the Hague Judgments Convention), while endorsing the recommendation of the Working Group on the Judgments Project that matters relating to direct jurisdiction should be put for consideration to the Experts’ Group of the Judgments Project soon after the Special Commission has drawn up a draft Convention.

The Special Commission will meet in the Hague between 1 and 9 June 2016 to discuss the proposed draft text drawn up by the Working Group. The text may be found here, accompanied by an explanatory note prepared by the Permanent Bureau.

As stated in Article 1 of the proposed draft text, the Convention is meant to apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments “relating to civil and commercial matters”, at the exclusion of matters in the field of family law, the law of persons and successions. Insolvency, the carriage of passengers and goods, marine pollution, liability for nuclear damage and defamation are equally featured in the list of excluded matters.

Article 4(1) provides that a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State must be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State in accordance with the Convention. Recognition and enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in the Convention itself.

As a rule, a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the bases listed in Article 5 of the proposed draft text is met, ie, if jurisdiction was asserted in the country of origin in conformity with one of the grounds of jurisdiction contemplated by the Convention.

Suitable grounds include the habitual residence of the defendant (to be understood as meaning, pursuant to Article 3(2), the place where the defendant has its statutory seat, or under whose law it was incorporated, or where it has its central administration or principal place of business), and the defendant’s consent to the jurisdiction of the seised court as expressed in the course of the proceedings.

According to the proposed draft text, a judgment is also eligible for recognition, inter alia: if it ruled on a contractual obligation “and was given in the State in which performance of that obligation took place or should take place under the parties’ agreement or under the law applicable to the contract, unless the defendant’s activities in relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State”; if it ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from personal injury or damage to tangible property, “and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred”; if the judgment ruled on an infringement of a patent, trademark, design or other IP right required to be deposited or registered, “and it was given by a court in the State in which the deposit or registration of the right concerned has taken place”; if the judgment ruled on the validity or infringement of copyright or related rights “and the right arose under the law of the State of origin”.

By derogation from Article 5, the proposed draft text sets forth in Article 6 some exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement. In particular, a judgment that ruled on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered “shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the State of origin is the State in which deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place, or is deemed to have been applied for or to have taken place under the terms of an international or regional instrument”, while a judgment that ruled on rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property for a period of more than six months “shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State of origin”.

The grounds on which a judgment eligible for recognition and enforcement may nevertheless be denied recognition or enforcement in a Contracting State are enumerated in Article 7.

Specifically, recognition and enforcement may be denied if the document which instituted the proceedings was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence or “was notified to the defendant in the requested State in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service of documents”; if the judgment “was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure”; if recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested State”; if the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in the requested State in a dispute between the same parties with an earlier judgment given in another State between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfills the conditions necessary for its recognition in the requested State.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the proposed draft text, recognition or enforcement may also be refused “if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered”.

Article 11 lays down the list of documents to be produced by the party seeking recognition or applying for enforcement of a foreign judgment under the Convention, while Article 12 clarifies that the procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested State unless the Convention provides otherwise.

On 17 March 2016, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference on Private International Law decided to set up a Special Commission to prepare a draft Convention on the recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments (the Hague Judgments Convention), while endorsing the recommendation of the Working Group on the Judgments Project that matters relating to direct jurisdiction should be put for consideration to the Experts’ Group of the Judgments Project soon after the Special Commission has drawn up a draft Convention.

The Special Commission will meet in the Hague between 1 and 9 June 2016 to discuss the proposed draft text drawn up by the Working Group. The text may be found here, accompanied by an explanatory note prepared by the Permanent Bureau.

As stated in Article 1 of the proposed draft text, the Convention is meant to apply to the recognition and enforcement of judgments “relating to civil and commercial matters”, at the exclusion of matters in the field of family law, the law of persons and successions. Insolvency, the carriage of passengers and goods, marine pollution, liability for nuclear damage and defamation are equally featured in the list of excluded matters.

Article 4(1) provides that a judgment given by a court of a Contracting State must be recognised and enforced in another Contracting State in accordance with the Convention. Recognition and enforcement may be refused only on the grounds specified in the Convention itself.

As a rule, a judgment is eligible for recognition and enforcement if one of the bases listed in Article 5 of the proposed draft text is met, ie, if jurisdiction was asserted in the country of origin in conformity with one of the grounds of jurisdiction contemplated by the Convention.

Suitable grounds include the habitual residence of the defendant (to be understood as meaning, pursuant to Article 3(2), the place where the defendant has its statutory seat, or under whose law it was incorporated, or where it has its central administration or principal place of business), and the defendant’s consent to the jurisdiction of the seised court as expressed in the course of the proceedings.

According to the proposed draft text, a judgment is also eligible for recognition, inter alia: if it ruled on a contractual obligation “and was given in the State in which performance of that obligation took place or should take place under the parties’ agreement or under the law applicable to the contract, unless the defendant’s activities in relation to the transaction clearly did not constitute a purposeful and substantial connection to that State”; if it ruled on a non-contractual obligation arising from personal injury or damage to tangible property, “and the act or omission directly causing such harm occurred in the State of origin, irrespective of where that harm occurred”; if the judgment ruled on an infringement of a patent, trademark, design or other IP right required to be deposited or registered, “and it was given by a court in the State in which the deposit or registration of the right concerned has taken place”; if the judgment ruled on the validity or infringement of copyright or related rights “and the right arose under the law of the State of origin”.

By derogation from Article 5, the proposed draft text sets forth in Article 6 some exclusive bases for recognition and enforcement. In particular, a judgment that ruled on the registration or validity of patents, trademarks, designs, or other similar rights required to be deposited or registered “shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the State of origin is the State in which deposit or registration has been applied for, has taken place, or is deemed to have been applied for or to have taken place under the terms of an international or regional instrument”, while a judgment that ruled on rights in rem in immovable property or tenancies of immovable property for a period of more than six months “shall be recognised and enforced if and only if the property is situated in the State of origin”.

The grounds on which a judgment eligible for recognition and enforcement may nevertheless be denied recognition or enforcement in a Contracting State are enumerated in Article 7.

Specifically, recognition and enforcement may be denied if the document which instituted the proceedings was not notified to the defendant in sufficient time and in such a way as to enable him to arrange for his defence or “was notified to the defendant in the requested State in a manner that is incompatible with fundamental principles of the requested State concerning service of documents”; if the judgment “was obtained by fraud in connection with a matter of procedure”; if recognition or enforcement would be manifestly incompatible with the public policy of the requested State”; if the judgment is inconsistent with a judgment given in the requested State in a dispute between the same parties with an earlier judgment given in another State between the same parties on the same cause of action, provided that the earlier judgment fulfills the conditions necessary for its recognition in the requested State.

Pursuant to Article 9 of the proposed draft text, recognition or enforcement may also be refused “if, and to the extent that, the judgment awards damages, including exemplary or punitive damages, that do not compensate a party for actual loss or harm suffered”.

Article 11 lays down the list of documents to be produced by the party seeking recognition or applying for enforcement of a foreign judgment under the Convention, while Article 12 clarifies that the procedure for recognition, declaration of enforceability or registration for enforcement, and the enforcement of the judgment, are governed by the law of the requested State unless the Convention provides otherwise.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Lyon, chambre de l'instruction, 11 mars 2016

La riforma del regolamento Bruxelles I. Il regolamento (UE) n. 1215/2012 sulla giurisdizione e l’efficacia delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, a cura di A. Malatesta, con la collaborazione di G. Vitellino e N. Nisi, Giuffrè, 2016, ISBN: 9788814212451, pp. 238, Euro 20.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – Il volume analizza le novità introdotte dal regolamento (UE) n. 1215/2012 del 12 dicembre 2012 (c.d. «Bruxelles I-bis»), alla disciplina concernente la competenza giurisdizionale e il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia civile e commerciale. Dal 10 gennaio 2015 esso sostituisce il precedente regolamento (CE) n. 44/2001 del 22 dicembre 2000, il quale a sua volta era succeduto, “comunitarizzandola”, alla convenzione di Bruxelles del 1968, oggetto come noto ormai da oltre quarant’anni di applicazione nella prassi giudiziaria italiana. Il nuovo testo modifica in alcuni punti anche sensibilmente – si pensi solo all’abolizione dell’exequatur – la precedente normativa. Gli Autori si soffermano sugli aspetti di maggiore interesse per l’operatore giuridico italiano coinvolto in liti di carattere internazionale. Il volume è corredato da un’appendice completa e ragionata e da informazioni non immediatamente accessibili agli utenti.

L’indice dell’opera può essere consultato qui. Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

A joint conference of the Max Planck Institute for Procedural Law (Luxembourg) and the British Institute for International and Comparative Law will be held on May 26th in London, within the framework of a series of BIICL events on the Brexit.

This particular seminar will look at the potential impact of a Brexit on cross-border commercial dispute resolution and on the role of London as a center for international litigation and arbitration. Speakers will address selected questions such as the legal framework for the transitional period; the validity of choice of court agreements and future frequency of choice of court agreements in favour of English courts; the different approaches in England and under the Brussels I Recast as to parallel proceedings; the cross-border circulation of titles; the Swiss position as to commercial dispute resolution between Member States and third States. A roundtable discussion will place a particular focus on London’s future as a centre for commercial dispute resolution post Brexit.

Speakers:

• Burkhard Hess, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg
• Richard Fentiman, University of Cambridge
• Andrew Dickinson, University of Oxford
• Marta Requejo Isidro, Max Planck Institute Luxembourg/University of Santiago de Compostela
• Trevor Hartley, London School of Economics
• Alexander Layton QC, 20 Essex Street
• Tanja Domej, University of Zurich
• Thomas Pfeiffer, University of Heidelberg
• Paul Oberhammer, University of Vienna
• Adam Johnson, Herbert Smith Freehills
• Martin Howe QC, 8 New Square
• Karen Birch, Allen and Overy
• Diana Wallis, President of the European Law Institute and former Vice-President of the European Parliament
• Deba Das, Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer LLP

 

Time: 15:30-19:00 (followed by a drinks reception)

Venue: British Institute of International and Comparative Law, Charles Clore House, 17 Russell Square, London WC1B 5JP

The program is available here; for registration click here.

On 3 May 2016, Neža Pogorelčnik Vogrinc (Univ. Ljubljana) will speak of Provisional measures in European civil procedural law in the framework of a workshop at the Rovigo branch of the Department of Law of the University of Ferrara.

Attendance is free. See here for more details.

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Versailles, chambre de l'instruction, 1er mars 2016

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 7, 29 octobre 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Paris, pôle 5, chambre 7, 29 octobre 2015

Borealis Polyolefine
Environnement et consommateurs
La Cour déclare invalide la quantité annuelle maximale de quotas gratuits d’émission de gaz à effet de serre fixée par la Commission pour la période 2013-2020