Agrégateur de flux

Tribunal des affaires de sécurité sociale de l'Essonne, 6 octobre 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Grenoble, 1ere chambre, 24 mars 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Pau, 1ere chambre, 16 décembre 2014

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel d'Aix-en-Provence, 6eme chambre A, 26 juin 2014

Burkhard Hess, Cristina M. Mariottini, Protecting Privacy in Private International and Procedural Law and by Data Protection. European and American Developments, Ashgate, 2015, ISBN 9781472473301, pp. 400, GBP 72.

[Dal sito dell’editore] – A new volume has recently been published in the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg Book Series. Ensuring the effective right to privacy regarding the gathering and processing of personal data has become a key issue both in the internal market and in the international arena. The extent of one’s right to control their data, the implications of the ‘right to be forgotten’, the impact of the Court of Justice of the European Union’s decisions on personality rights, and recent defamation legislation are shaping a new understanding of data protection and the right to privacy. This book explores these issues with a view to assessing the status quo and prospective developments in this area of the law which is undergoing significant changes and reforms.

Ulteriori informazioni, compreso il sommario dell’opera, sono disponibili in inglese e in tedesco, rispettivamente, qui e qui.

Tandis qu’Emmanuel Pierrat publie, aux Éditions La Martinière, un bel ouvrage consacré aux grands procès de l’histoire, le musée du Barreau leur consacre une très intéressante exposition-dossier.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Limoges, chambre de l'instruction, 11 décembre 2014

The Max Planck Institute Luxembourg is accepting applications for the 2016 Summer School on Approaches to Procedural Law: The Pluralism of Methods, organised in collaboration with the International Association of Procedural Law under the direction of Loïc Cadiet (Université Paris 1 – Sorbonne) and Burkhard Hess (MPI Luxembourg).

The Summer School will take place at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg between 10 and 13 July 2016. Up to 20 places will be available for applicants having procedural law and/or dispute resolution mechanisms as their main field of academic interest.

The deadline for applications is 31 January 2016.

[From the press release] – The first IAPL-MPI Summer School at the premises of the Max Planck Institute in Luxembourg in July 2014 was a successful experience, recently crowned by the publication of the collective book Procedural Science at the Crossroads of Different Generations (Nomos 2015). This success has encouraged the organization of a second edition in 2016. The second edition of IAPL-MPI Post-Doctoral Summer School aims like the first one to bring together outstanding young post-doc researchers of any nationality dealing with European and comparative procedural law, as well as with other relevant dispute mechanisms for civil controversies. Researchers at the very ending stage of their PhD project are also invited to apply. The School will give them an opportunity to openly share and discuss their current project of research with other young colleagues, but also with experienced law professors and practitioners. In this regard, Luxembourg is presently for many reasons one of the most interesting venues in Europe, where many opportunities for exchanges between procedural theory and practice are offered.

Further details can be found here

N’est pas contraire à l’ordre public international français l’article 1600, d, du code civil allemand qui ne soumet pas l’exercice de l’action en constatation judiciaire de paternité à un délai de prescription.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Filiation (Établissement judiciaire)

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Nouméa, chambre des appels correctionnels, 3 mars 2015

The Polish Yearbook of International Law has issued a call for unpublished papers addressing, inter alia, private international law topics, to be included in its next volume.

The deadline for submissions is 31 January 2016.

Further information can be found here.

In my posting on Lutz I flagged the increasing relevance of Article 13 of the Insolvency Regulation. This Article neutralises the lex concursus in favour of the lex causae governing the act between a person (often a company) benefiting from an act detrimental to all the creditors, and the insolvent company. Classic example is a payment made by the insolvent company to one particular creditor. Evidently this is detrimental to the other creditors, who are confronted with reduced means against which they can exercise their rights. Article 13 reads

Detrimental acts. Article 4(2)(m) shall not apply where the person who benefited from an act detrimental to all the creditors provides proof that: – the said act is subject to the law of a Member State other than that of the State of the opening of proceedings, and – that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.

In the case at issue, C-310/14, Nike (incorporated in The Netherlands) had a franchise agreement with Sportland Oy, a Finnish company. This agreement is governed by Dutch law (through choice of law). Sportland paid for a number of Nike deliveries. Payments went ahead a few months before and after the opening of the insolvency proceedings. Sportland’s liquidator attempts to have the payments annulled, and to have Nike reimburse.

Under Finnish law, para 10 of the Law on recovery of assets provides that the payment of a debt within three months of the prescribed date may be challenged if it is paid with an unusual means of payment, is paid prematurely, or in an amount which, in view of the amount of the debtor’s estate, may be regarded as significant. Under Netherlands law, according to Article 47 of the Law on insolvency (Faillissementswet), the payment of an outstanding debt may be challenged only if it is proven that when the recipient received the payment he was aware that the application for insolvency proceedings had already been lodged or that the payment was agreed between the creditor and the debtor in order to give priority to that creditor to the detriment of the other creditors.

Nike first of all argued, unsuccessfully in the Finnish courts, that the payment was not ‘unusual’. The Finnish courts essentially held that under relevant Finnish law, the payment was unusual among others because the amount paid was quite high in relation to the overall assets of the company. Nike argues in subsidiary order that Dutch law, the lex causae of the franchise agreement, should be applied. Attention then focussed (and the CJEU held on) the burden of proof under Article 13, as well as the exact meaning of ‘that law does not allow any means of challenging that act in the relevant case.‘

Firstly, the Finnish version of the Regulation seemingly does not include wording identical or similar to ‘in the relevant case‘ (Article 13 in fine). Insisting on a restrictive interpretation of Article 13, which it had also held in Lutz, the CJEU held that all the circumstances of the cases need to be taken into account. The person profiting from the action cannot solely rely ‘in a purely abstract manner, on the unchallengeable character of the act at issue on the basis of a provision of the lex causae‘ (at 21).

Related to this issue the referring court had actually quoted the Virgos Schmit report, which reads in relevant part (at 137) ‘By “any means” it is understood that the act must not be capable of being challenged using either rules on insolvency or general rules of the national law applicable to the act’. This interpretation evidently reduces the comfort zone for the party who benefitted from the act. It widens the search area, so to speak. It was suggested, for instance, that Dutch law in general includes a prohibition of abuse of rights, which is wider than the limited circumstances of the Faillissementswet, referred to above.

The CJEU surprisingly does not quote the report however it does come to a similar conclusion: at 36: ‘the expression ‘does not allow any means of challenging that act …’ applies, in addition to the insolvency rules of the lex causae, to the general provisions and principles of that law, taken as a whole.’

Attention then shifted to the burden of proof: which party is required to plead that the circumstances for application of a provision of the lex causae leading to voidness, voidability or unenforceability of the act, do not exist? The CJEU held on the basis of Article 13’s wording and overall objectives that it is for the defendant in an action relating to the voidness, voidability or unenforceability of an act to provide proof, on the basis of the lex causae, that the act cannot be challenged. Tthe defendant has to prove both the facts from which the conclusion can be drawn that the act is unchallengeable and the absence of any evidence that would militate against that conclusion (at 25).

However, (at 27) ‘although Article 13 of the regulation expressly governs where the burden of proof lies, it does not contain any provisions on more specific procedural aspects. For instance, that article does not set out, inter alia, the ways in which evidence is to be elicited, what evidence is to be admissible before the appropriate national court, or the principles governing that court’s assessment of the probative value of the evidence adduced before it.‘

‘(T)he issue of determining the criteria for ascertaining whether the applicant has in fact proven that the act can be challenged falls within the procedural autonomy of the relevant Member State, regard being had to the principles of effectiveness and equivalence.’ (at 44)

The Court therefore once again bumps into the limits of autonomous interpretation. How ad hoc, concrete (as opposed to ‘in the abstract’: see the CJEU’s words, above) the defendant has to be in providing proof (and foreign expert testimony with it), may differ greatly in the various Member States. Watch this space for more judicial review of Article 13.

Geert.

A new article by Dr. Manuel Penadés Fons, London School of Economics, has been published at the Modern Law Review, (2015) 78(2) MLR 241–295.

Abstract

English courts are frequently criticised for their flexible approach to the finding of implied choice and the use of the escape clause in the context of the Rome I Regulation/Convention on the law applicable to contractual obligations. This paper argues that such criticism is misplaced. Based on empirical evidence, the article shows that those choice of law decisions are directly influenced by their procedural context and respond to the need to balance the multiple policy issues generated by international commercial litigation. In particular, English decisions need to be assessed in light of three distinct factors: the standard of proof required at different stages of the procedure in England, the national policy to promote England as a center for commercial dispute resolution and the incentives to export English law in certain strategic industries. The use of implied choice and the escape clause to achieve these ends constitutes a legitimate practice that does not frustrate the aims of the EU choice of law regime.

 

Une clause attributive de juridictions, qui permet d’identifier les juridictions éventuellement amenées à se saisir d’un litige opposant les parties à l’occasion de l’exécution ou de l’interprétation du contrat, répond à l’impératif de prévisibilité auquel doivent satisfaire les clauses d’élection de for en application du règlement Bruxelles I du 22 décembre 2000.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Compétence (Procédure civile)

en lire plus

Par un arrêt rendu le 30 septembre 2015, le Tribunal de l’Union européenne approuve la décision de refus d’enregistrement d’une initiative citoyenne européenne proposant la reconnaissance du principe de « l’état de nécessité » visant à annuler le remboursement des dettes publiques des États membres confrontés à des difficultés financières.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

The programme of the the Fifth Biennial Conference of the Asian Society of International Law, that will take place in Bangkok on 26 and 27 November 2015 under the title International Law and the Changing Economic & Political Landscape in Asia, is now available.

Some of the conference panels will deal with private international law issues. In particular, one panel will be devoted to Conflict of Laws Issues Relating To Family, Marriage & Children and will host presentations by Ornella Feraci (University of Florence), The Impact of the Best Interests of the Child on the Recognition of Civil Status Lawfully Acquired Abroad Following International Surrogacy Arrangements (ISAs); M.Z. Ashraful (Metropolitan University, Sylhet, Bangladesh), Conflict of Laws Complexities Arising from the International Surrogacy Agreement: A Study on South Asian Countries; Monica Chawla (Indian Society of International Law), Conflicts of Laws Arising Due to Inter-country Adoptions – An Analysis;  Andrea Susanne Büchler (University of Zurich), Divided Motherhood Across the Globe: Surrogacy and Legal and Cultural Encounters between Europe and Asia.

The whole programme is available here. The abstracts of the presentations may be found here and here.

For more information see here.

One night this week I was teaching a taster class to final year secondary school students (17-18yr olds). I decided I should make it challenging enough. This, I surmised, would help all those present. Either they would now run a mile from Law School, never to look back (thus taking away all doubt). Or their curiosity would be tickled enough for them to want to learn more (thus for them, too, taking away all doubt). I settled on CSR and conflicts: the Shell Nigeria case, with links to Kiobel (and Adam Smith, David Ricardo; special purpose vehicles; and the impending merger between Leuven’s AB Inbev and SAB Miller. All very exciting stuff!, in an allocated tome slot of 30 minutes). I hope readers will agree that conflict of laws does just the trick referred to above: scare off the doubters; pull in the doubters.

Anyways, that class was at the back of my mind as I was reading up on Americold Logistics. I am not a US trained or US qualified lawyer hence this posting may not be howler-proof however I understand that one particular avenue to gain access to US federal courts (as opposed to State courts; and over and above the issue being an issue based on federal law), is so-called ‘diversity jurisdiction’. This means the federal courts can hear a case if the citisenship of the parties involved is diverse: i.e. of at least two different US States or one of them being foreign. I also understand that to determine corporate citisenship, reference is made to the principal place of business (not therefore generally co-inciding with place of incorporation).

But how about trusts? What identify does a trust have with a view to diversity jurisdiction? In Americold Logistics, the Tenth Circuit sua sponte queried whether there was full diversity of citizenship among the parties. In particular, the judges challenged whether the citizenship of Americold Realty Trust, a business trust, should be determined by reference to its trustees’ citizenship, or instead by reference to some broader set of factors. This issue has deeply split courts across the country. Joining the minority of courts, the Tenth Circuit held the jurisdictional inquiry extends, at a minimum, to the citizenship of a trust’s beneficiaries in addition to its trustees’ citizenship. In this case, doing so destroyed diversity of citizenship among the parties. The issue is disputed, following relevant (seemingly inconclusive) precedent, summarised by SCOTUS here.  The USCC has now granted certiorari.

This judgment will be of quite some relevance to US legal (trust) practice. I think readers will agree that it was wise not to pick it, and the wider issue of trust identity, for lawyers in spe.

Geert.

This year’s volume of the Yearbook of Private International Law is just about to be released. The Yearbook is edited by Professors Andrea Bonomi (Lausanne) and Gian Paolo Romano (Geneva) and published in association with the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law. This year’s edition is the first volume to be published by Otto Schmidt (Cologne), ISBN 978-3-504-08004-4. It is 588 pages strong and costs 189,00 €. For further information, please click here.

The new volume contains the following contributions:

Doctrine
Linda J. SILBERMAN
Daimler AG v. Bauman: A New Era for Judicial Jurisdiction in the United States
Rui Manuel MOURA RAMOS
The New Portuguese Arbitration Act (Law No. 63/2011 of 14 December on Voluntary Arbitration)
Francisco GARCIMARTÍN
Provisional and Protective Measures in the Brussels I Regulation Recast
Martin ILLMER
The Revised Brussels I Regulation and Arbitration – A Missed Opportunity?
Ornella FERACI
Party Autonomy and Conflict of Jurisdictions in the EU Private International Law on Family and Succession Matters
Gian Paolo ROMANO
Conflicts between Parents and between Legal Orders in Respect of Parental Responsibility

Special Jurisdiction under the Brussels I-bis Regulation
Thomas KADNER GRAZIANO
Jurisdiction under Article 7 no. 1 of the Recast Brussels I Regulation: Disconnecting the Procedural Place of Performance from its Counterpart in Substantive Law. An Analysis of the Case Law of the ECJ and Proposals de lege lata and de lege ferenda
Michel REYMOND
Jurisdiction under Article 7 no. 1 of the Recast Brussels I Regulation: The Case of Contracts for the Supply of Software
Jan VON HEIN
Protecting Victims of Cross-Border Torts under Article 7 No. 2 Brussels Ibis: Towards a more Differentiated and Balanced Approach

Surrogacy across State Lines: Challenges and Responses
Marion MEILHAC-PERRI
National Regulation and Cross-Border Surrogacy in France
Konstantinos ROKAS
National Regulation and Cross-Border Surrogacy in European Union Countries and Possible Solutions for Problematic Situations
Michael WELLS-GRECO / Henry DAWSON
Inter-Country Surrogacy and Public Policy: Lessons from the European Court of Human Rights

Uniform Private International Law in Context
Apostolos ANTHIMOS
Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Judgments in Greece under the Brussels I-bis Regulation
Annelies NACHTERGAELE
Harmonization of Private International Law in the Southern African Development Community

News from Brussels
Michael BOGDAN
Some Reflections on the Scope of Application of the EU Regulation No 606/2013 on Mutual Recognition of Protection Measures in Civil Matters

National Reports
Diego P. FERNANDEZ ARROYO
A New Autonomous Dimension for the Argentinian Private International Law System
Maja KOSTIC-MANDIC
The New Private International Law Act of Montenegro
Claudia LUGO HOLMQUIST / Mirian RODRÍGUEZ REYES
Divorce in the Venezuelan System of Private International Law
Maria João MATIAS FERNANDES
International Jurisdiction under the 2013 Portuguese Civil Procedure Code
Petra UHLÍROVÁ
New Private International Law in the Czech Republic

Forum
Chiara MARENGHI
The Law Applicable to Product Liability in Context: Article 5 of the Rome II Regulation and its Interaction with other EU Instruments
Marjolaine ROCCATI
The Role of the National Judge in a European Judicial Area – From an Internal Market to Civil Cooperation

Commission / Grèce
Environnement et consommateurs
Pour avoir tardé à mettre en œuvre la directive sur le traitement des eaux urbaines résiduaires, la Grèce est condamnée à une somme forfaitaire de 10 millions d’euros et à une astreinte de 3,64 millions d’euros par semestre de retard

Ad oltre due mesi di distanza dalla pubblicazione della legge n. 101 del 18 giugno 2015, di autorizzazione alla ratifica, l’Italia ha provveduto, il 30 settembre 2015, al deposito del proprio strumento di ratifica della Convenzione sulla competenza, la legge applicabile, l’efficacia delle decisioni e la cooperazione in materia di responsabilità genitoriale e di misure di protezione dei minori, fatta all’Aja il 19 ottobre 1996 (si veda da ultimo, sull’iter del processo di ratifica, questo post).

La Convenzione, come previsto dal suo art. 61, par. 2, lett. a), entrerà in vigore per l’Italia il 1° gennaio 2016.

La ratifica italiana è accompagnata da diverse dichiarazioni.

Innanzitutto, come gli altri Stati membri dell’Unione, l’Italia ha dichiarato – nei termini contemplati sin dalla decisione 2003/93/CE, del Consiglio, del 19 dicembre 2002 – che gli articoli 23, 26 e 52 della Convenzione concedono alle parti contraenti una certa flessibilità ai fini della semplicità e della rapidità del regime di riconoscimento ed esecuzione delle decisioni e che la normativa comunitaria prevede un sistema di riconoscimento ed esecuzione che è almeno altrettanto favorevole quanto le norme stabilite dalla Convenzione. Di conseguenza, prosegue la dichiarazione, una decisione emanante da un organo giurisdizionale di uno Stato membro dell’Unione su una questione relativa alla Convenzione è riconosciuta ed eseguita in Italia in applicazione delle pertinenti norme interne del diritto comunitario.

Avvalendosi della facoltà prevista all’art. 55 della Convenzione, l’Italia ha poi reso noto di riservare la competenza delle proprie autorità quanto all’adozione di misure volte alla protezione dei beni di un minore che si trovino sul territorio italiano. Ha inoltre dichiarato di riservarsi il diritto di non riconoscere una responsabilità genitoriale o una misura che potrebbe essere incompatibile con una misura adottata dalle sue autorità riguardo a tali beni.

Un’ulteriore dichiarazione resa dall’Italia contestualmente alla ratifica si riferisce all’art. 34, par. 1, della Convenzione. La norma ora ricordata stabilisce che, in previsione dell’adozione di una misura di protezione, le autorità competenti ai sensi della Convenzione possono domandare ad ogni autorità di un altro Stato contraente che detenga informazioni utili per la protezione del minore di comunicargliele. In forza della dichiarazione, tale richiesta, ove sia rivolta alle autorità italiane, potrà essere fatta – come consente l’art. 34, par. 2 – esclusivamente per il tramite dell’Autorità centrale italiana, identificata, ai sensi dell’art. 3 della legge n. 101/2015, nella Presidenza del Consiglio dei Ministri.

Alla stessa Autorità centrale dovranno essere indirizzare le domande di cui agli articoli 8, 9 e 33 della Convenzione, provenienti dagli altri Stati contraenti. Le disposizioni ora citate riguardano, in sintesi, il trasferimento del caso a un’autorità meglio collocata per pronunciarsi su di esso (articoli 8 e 9), e il collocamento del minore in una famiglia di accoglienza o in un istituto (o la sua assistenza legale tramite kafala o istituto analogo), quando tale collocamento (o assistenza) avverrà in un altro Stato contraente (art. 33).

L’approssimarsi dell’entrata in vigore per l’Italia rende urgente l’adozione, nell’ordinamento interno, di quelle misure di attuazione e di coordinamento con le norme esistenti che il Parlamento non è stato in grado di elaborare assieme alla legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica e all’emanazione dell’ordine di esecuzione.

Il disegno di legge recante tali misure (atto Senato n. 1552 bis), stralciato dal disegno di legge di autorizzazione alla ratifica, è tuttora allo studio della Commissione Giustizia del Senato, che nella seduta del 21 luglio 2015 ha prospettato lo svolgimento di un ciclo di audizioni.