A fully updated, second edition of the textbook European Private International Law by Geert Van Calster (University of Leuven) has just been published (Hart Publishing, 2016).
The blurb reads:
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.
More information is available here.
Readers will have noticed that a substantial part of the blog relates to Conflict of Laws /private international law. Following the example of Steve Peers, I will from now on add tags to the conflicts postings to assist readers of the 2nd ed of my Handbook on European Private international law. These will relate to the closest level of headings relevant to the posting. (E.g. my upcoming post on Saugmandsgaard AG in re Amazon will be tagged ‘Chapter 2’ and ‘2.2.11.2’. One next week on yesterday’s Opinion of Kokott AG on Mareva injunctions will be tagged ‘Chapter 2’ and ‘2.2.16’).
I cannot promise I will shortly be able to update all past postings (there are a lot) in this way however all postings until December 2015 are in some way or another included in the 2016 ed.
Thank you, Steve, for the idea.
Geert.
In 2015, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference decided that an Experts’ Group should be convened to explore the feasibility of advancing work on the private international law issues surrounding the status of children, including issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements (for further information on the Parentage / Surrogacy project, see here).
The Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met from 15 to 18 February 2016 (the full report is available here). The discussion, based on a background note drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, revealed significant diversity in national approaches to parentage and surrogacy.
The Group noted that “the absence of uniform private international law rules or approaches with respect to the establishment and contestation of parentage can lead to conflicting legal statuses across borders and can create significant problems for children and families”, including limping parental statuses, uncertain identity of the child, immigration problems, uncertain nationality or statelessness of the child, abandonment including the lack of maintenance. “Common solutions”, the Group observed, “are needed to address these problems”.
In particular, as regards the status quo, the Group noted the following.
(a) Most States do not have specific private international law rules regarding assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy agreements.
(b) Regarding jurisdiction, issues mostly arise in the context of legal parentage being established by or arising from birth registration, voluntary acknowledgment of legal parentage or judicial proceedings. The experts reported, however, that jurisdiction issues tend to arise not as a stand-alone topic, but rather in connection with recognition.
(c) Regarding applicable law, there is a split between those States whose private international law rules point to the application of the lex fori and those whose private international law rules may also lead to the application of foreign law.
(d) Regarding recognition, the Group acknowledged the diversity of approaches of States with respect to the recognition of foreign public documents such as birth certificates or voluntary acknowledgements of parentage, and noted that there is more congruity of practice with respect to the recognition of foreign judicial decisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Group determined that “definitive conclusions could not be reached at the meeting as to the feasibility of a possible work product in this area and its type or scope” and expressed the view that “work should continue” and that, at this stage, “consideration of the feasibility should focus primarily on recognition”. The Group therefore recommended to Council, whose next meeting is scheduled to take place on 15 to 17 March 2016 (see here the draft agenda), that the Group’s mandate be continued.
In 2015, the Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference decided that an Experts’ Group should be convened to explore the feasibility of advancing work on the private international law issues surrounding the status of children, including issues arising from international surrogacy arrangements (for further information on the Parentage / Surrogacy project, see here).
The Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy met from 15 to 18 February 2016 (the full report is available here). The discussion, based on a background note drawn up by the Permanent Bureau, revealed significant diversity in national approaches to parentage and surrogacy.
The Group noted that “the absence of uniform private international law rules or approaches with respect to the establishment and contestation of parentage can lead to conflicting legal statuses across borders and can create significant problems for children and families”, including limping parental statuses, uncertain identity of the child, immigration problems, uncertain nationality or statelessness of the child, abandonment including the lack of maintenance. “Common solutions”, the Group observed, “are needed to address these problems”.
In particular, as regards the status quo, the Group noted the following.
(a) Most States do not have specific private international law rules regarding assisted reproductive technologies and surrogacy agreements.
(b) Regarding jurisdiction, issues mostly arise in the context of legal parentage being established by or arising from birth registration, voluntary acknowledgment of legal parentage or judicial proceedings. The experts reported, however, that jurisdiction issues tend to arise not as a stand-alone topic, but rather in connection with recognition.
(c) Regarding applicable law, there is a split between those States whose private international law rules point to the application of the lex fori and those whose private international law rules may also lead to the application of foreign law.
(d) Regarding recognition, the Group acknowledged the diversity of approaches of States with respect to the recognition of foreign public documents such as birth certificates or voluntary acknowledgements of parentage, and noted that there is more congruity of practice with respect to the recognition of foreign judicial decisions.
Based on the foregoing, the Group determined that “definitive conclusions could not be reached at the meeting as to the feasibility of a possible work product in this area and its type or scope” and expressed the view that “work should continue” and that, at this stage, “consideration of the feasibility should focus primarily on recognition”. The Group therefore recommended to Council, whose next meeting is scheduled to take place on 15 to 17 March 2016 (see here the draft agenda), that the Group’s mandate be continued.
Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de la Moselle, section agricole, 27 janvier 2016
Cour d'appel d'Aix en Provence, 7e chambre correctionnelle, 18 février 2016
Sabrine Maya Bouyahia, La proximité en droit international privé de la famille, Harmattan, 2015, ISBN 9782343054643, pp. 618, Euro 51,30.
[Dal sito dell’editore] – Parmi les méthodes proposées pour trancher les litiges présentant un élément d’extranéité, figure celle reposant sur le principe de proximité. L’étude porte sur deux systèmes de droit international privé de la famille différents (droit français et droit tunisien) pour mettre en exergue d’une part l’adaptation de cette méthode aux spécificités de chaque ordre étatique et d’autre part son adéquation avec tous les différents systèmes de droit.
Ulteriori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.
La Commission européenne a adressé le 10 février 2016, neuf avis motivés à sept États membres, dont la France, en raison de la non-transposition complète des directives constituant le socle commun du régime d’asile européen.
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: NéantRéféré - Provision - Responsabilité du fait des produits défectueux
Protection des droits de la personne - Production de preuve -
Atteinte disproportionnée au respect de la vie privée
Avocat - Secret professionnel - Etendue
L’Associazione Italiana per l’Arbitrato ha indetto la settima edizione del premio “Eugenio Minoli”, per le migliori tre tesi di laurea in materia di arbitrato commerciale internazionale discusse nel periodo compreso tra il 1° giugno 2014 e il 30 marzo 2016.
Il termine per la presentazione delle domande scade il 31 maggio 2016.
Maggiori informazioni sono disponibili a questo indirizzo.
Par un arrêt du 21 janvier 2016, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne juge la législation chypriote sur les droits à la retraite contraire au droit de l’Union parce qu’elle désavantage les travailleurs migrants par rapport à ceux qui n’exercent leur activité professionnelle qu’à Chypre.
En carrousel matière: Non Matières OASIS: NéantLors de leur réunion des 18 et 19 février 2016, le Conseil européen est parvenu à un accord sur un nouvel arrangement pour le Royaume-Uni dans l’Union européenne. Place dorénavant au référendum organisé en juin 2016 pour connaître l’issue de cette situation inédite.
En carrousel matière: Oui Matières OASIS: NéantDivorce - Mesures provisoires ordonnées par le juge conciliateur ;
Régimes matrimoniaux - Détermination compétence juge conciliateur
Santé publique - Soins sans consentement - Notion de péril imminent
État - Responsabilité -
Fonctionnement défectueux du service de la justice
Theme by Danetsoft and Danang Probo Sayekti inspired by Maksimer