Agrégateur de flux

Giorgio Conetti, Sara Tonolo, Fabrizio Vismara, Manuale di diritto internazionale privato, 2a ed., Giappichelli, 2015, pp. XVIII+310, ISBN 9788834866474, Euro 26.

Questa la struttura dell’opera: Parte generale — Nozione e fonti; La giurisdizione; Il diritto applicabile; Efficacia di sentenze ed atti stranieri; Cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile: assunzione di mezzi di prova e notificazioni. Parte speciale — Capacità e diritti delle persone fisiche; Società e persone giuridiche; Matrimonio e divorzio; Filiazione e adozione; Tutela degli incapaci; Obblighi alimentari; Successioni e donazioni; Diritti reali; Obbligazioni.

Maggiori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Il 19 novembre 2015 l’Università di Barcellona ospiterà un incontro organizzato dalla Asociación Española de Profesores de Derecho Internacional y Relaciones Internacionales (AEPDIRI), dedicato alle novità che il diritto internazionale privato ha conosciuto negli ultimi mesi, in Spagna, per effetto della Ley 15/2015, del 2 luglio 2015, sulla giurisdizione volontaria, e della Ley 29/2015, del 30 luglio 2015, sulla cooperazione giudiziaria in materia civile.

Tra i relatori,  Carlos Esplugues (Univ. Valencia), Mónica Guzmán (UNED), Federico Garau (Univ. Islas Baleares), Javier Carrascosa González (Univ. Murcia), Cristina González Beilfuss (Univ. Barcelona), Andrés Rodríguez Benot (Univ. Pablo Olavide).

Ulteriori informazioni sono reperibili a questo indirizzo.

Les articles 1326 du code civil et L. 341-2 et L. 341-3 du code de la consommation ne sont pas des lois dont l’observation est nécessaire pour la sauvegarde de l’organisation politique, sociale et économique du pays au point de régir impérativement la situation et de constituer une loi de police.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Cautionnement

en lire plus

Par l’arrêt rendu le 8 septembre 2015, la Cour de justice de l’Union européenne rappelle qu’il appartient aux États membres de lutter, par des mesures dissuasives et effectives, contre la fraude fiscale grave portant atteintes aux intérêts financiers de l’Union.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Fort-de-France, Chambre de l'instruction, 10 juillet 2015

Pourvoi c/ Cour d'appel de Montpellier, 2ème chambre, 10 mars 2015

En application des articles 18 à 21 du règlement du 22 décembre 2000, les notions de contrat individuel de travail et de travailleur sont des notions autonomes du droit de l’Union.

En carrousel matière:  Oui Matières OASIS:  Compétence internationale (Procédure civile) Contrat de travail (Rupture) Délit

en lire plus

First, a quick heads-up on precedent: the difference between ‘contract’ and tort’ in European private international law is crucial, as regular readers of this blog will have observed. Crucial, yet the concept is left undefined in the Brussels I (and Recast) Regulation (which has a different special jurisdictional rule for both), the Rome I Regulation on applicable law for contracts, and the Rome II Regulation on applicable law for torts. Undefined, for these foundational elements of private law are outside the reach of legal and political compromise in the legislative process. Yet courts of course do have to apply the rules and in doing so, have to distinguish between both.

The CJEU pushes an ‘autonomous’ EU definition of both concepts which in the past has led to the seminal findings in Jakob Handte (C-26/91) and Kalfelis. In Handte the Court held: the phrase ‘matters relating to a contract [ ] is not to be understood as covering a situation in which there is no obligation freely assumed by one party towards another.’ (the double negative exercised scholarship for some time). In Kalfelis the Court had earlier defined ‘tort’ as ‘all actions which seek to establish liability of a defendant and which are not related to a ‘contract’ within the meaning of Article 5(1).’ (5(1) has become 7(1) in the Recast).

Is the relationship between two insurers, having covered liability for a towing vehicle cq a trailer, each subrogated in their insured’s rights and obligations, one of them currently exercising a claim against the other in partial recovery of the compensation due to the victim, non-contractual?

Per Kalfelis, tort as a category is residual. Sharpston AG’s starting point in Joined Cases Ergo Insurance and AAS Gjensidige Baltic, Opinion issued yesterday, therefore is to examine whether the recourse action is essentially contractual in nature. In the negative, the action is non-contractual. The case is evidently made more complex by the underlying relationships between insurer and insured, and the presence of subrogration. In question is not therefore the relationship between the insurer and the victim: this is clearly non-contractual. The question is rather whether the action of one insurer against the other is contractual in nature, given the contractual relationship between insurer and insured, cq the non-contractual relationship between the insured and the victim.

Sharpston AG first gets two issues out of the way. Lithuania (both referred cases are pending in Lithuanian courts) is a signatory State to the Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents, which is left unaffected by Rome II by virtue of Article 28. However the Convention itself holds that it does not apply to recourse action and subrogation involving insurance companies. Further, a suggestion that Directive 2009/103 (relating to insurance against civil liability in respect of the use of motor vehicles, and the enforcement of the obligation to insure against such liability) includes a conflict of laws (applicable law) rule which is lex specialis vis-a-vis the Rome Regulation, was quickly dismissed. Indeed the Directive’s provisions do not indicate whatsoever that they can be stretched.

Then comes the core of the issue, the nature of the relationship underlying the claim. This, the AG suggests, is contractual. Relevant precedent referred to includes Brogsitter and OFAB. Essentially the AG puts forward an ancestry test: what is the ancestry of the action, without which the parties concerned would not be finding themselves pleading in a court of law?: she uses ‘centre of gravity’ (‘the centre of gravity of the obligation to indemnify is in the contractual obligation’); ‘rooted in’ (‘the recourse action by one insurer against the other…is rooted in the contracts of insurance’); and ‘intimately bound up’ (‘[the action] is intimately bound up with the two insurers’ contractual obligation‘). (at 62).

Incidentally, in para 20 of her Opinion the AG refers, in giving context, to the difference between Lithuanian and German law (the accidents both occurred in Germany) as regards the limitation periods for bringing a recourse action. In Rome II, limitation periods are included in Article 15 as being covered by the lex causae; ditto in Article 12 of Rome I. This pre-empts discussion on the matter for whether limitation periods are covered by lex fori (as a procedural issue) or the lex causae is otherwise not necessarily the same in all Member States.

If the CJEU confirms, preferably using the terminology of its AG, the tort /contract discussion in my view will have been helpfully clarified.

Geert.

Si svolgerà il 1° e il 2 ottobre 2015, presso la Universidad Carlos III di Madrid, un convegno dal titolo Sucesiones internacionales, dedicato in larga parte al regolamento n. 650/2012 sulla competenza, la legge applicabile, il riconoscimento e l’esecuzione delle decisioni in materia di successioni per causa di morte.

Tra i partecipanti, Alfonso-Luis Calvo Caravaca (Univ. Carlos III), Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz (Univ. Carlos III), Angelo Davì (Univ. La Sapienza), Alessandra Zanobetti (Univ. Bologna) e Javier Carrascosa González (Univ. Murcia).

Per maggiori informazioni si veda qui.

Alors que l’Europe est confrontée à une crise des réfugiés, Bruxelles a ouvert, le 23 septembre 2015, quarante procédures d’infraction dans le domaine du droit d’asile. Ce qui est reproché aux dix-neuf États membres concernés ? Une « transposition incomplète de certains des instruments législatifs qui constituent le régime d’asile européen commun », explique la commission européenne.

En carrousel matière:  Non Matières OASIS:  Néant

en lire plus

Surendettement

Trade Secrecy and International Transactions, a cura di Elizabeth A. Rowe e Sharon K. Sandeen, Edward Elgar, 2015, pp. 368, ISBN 9781782540779, GBP 125.

[Dal sito dell’editore]  Trade secret protection has long been of critical strategic importance to business interests and globalization of commerce has driven an increasing need to govern the preservation of confidentiality in international business transactions. This book offers an authoritative and unparalleled resource on US and international trade secret law and identifies optimal practices for securing trade secrets in varying jurisdictions. Defined as the international standard for trade secret protection, the United States’ trade secret laws are explained in depth, illustrating their capacity and impediments. The proposed EU Trade Secret Directive and the impact this will have on international transactions is also closely examined, along with overviews of the laws in common law, civil law and mixed-law countries. The book combines detailed substantive analysis with clear practical guidance on questions such as how businesses can avoid misappropriation and maintain data exclusivity when engaging in global commerce, through the utilization of alternative self-help strategies.

Ulteriori informazioni a questo indirizzo.

Divorce, séparation de corps

Italie / Commission
Droit institutionnel
Le Tribunal de l’UE annule trois avis de concours qui obligent les candidats à choisir l’allemand, l’anglais ou le français comme deuxième langue et comme langue de communication avec EPSO

Last weekend the GEDIP (Group européen de droit international privé / European Group for Private International Law) met in Luxembourg. The GEDIP defines itself as “a closed forum composed of about 30 experts of the relations between private international law and European law, mainly academics from about 18 European States and also members of international organizations”. Nevertheless, as the meeting was hosted by the MPI -together with the Faculty of Law of Luxembourg- I had the privilege of being invited to the deliberations.

The history and purpose of the Group are well known: founded in 1991 (which means that it has just celebrated its 25fh anniversary), the Group has since then met once a year as an academic and scientific think tank in the field of European Private International Law. During the meetings the most recent developments in the area are presented and discussed, together with proposals for improving the European PIL legal setting. Actually, while the latter activity is at the core of the GEDIP gatherings, the combination with the former results in a well-balanced program. At the same time it shows the openness and awareness of the Group to what’s happening in other fora (and vice versa): the Commission -K. Vandekerckhove joined as observer and to inform on on-going activities-; the Hague Conference -represented this time by M. Pertegás, who updated us on the work of the Conference-, or the ECtHR -Prof. Kinsch summarized the most relevant decisions of the Strasbourg Court since the last GEDIP meeting.

In Luxembourg we enjoyed as hors d’oeuvre a presentation by Prof. C. Kohler on the CJEU Opinion 2/13, Opinion of the Court (Full Court) of 18 December 2014, on the Accession of the European Union to the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedom. Prof. Kohler started recalling the principle of mutual trust as backbone of the Opinion. From this he moved on to focus on the potential impact of the Opinion on PIL issues, in particular on the public policy clause in the framework of the recognition and enforcement of judgements in civil and commercial matters (here he recalled the recently published decision on C-681/13, where the Opinion is expressly quoted); and on cases of child abduction involving Member States, where the abolition of exequatur may elicit a doubt on the compliance with the ECHR obligations (see ad.ex. the ECtHR decision on the application no. 3890/11, Povse v. Austria). A second presentation, this time by Prof. T. Hartley, addressed the very much disputed issue of antisuit injunctions and the Brussels system in light of the Gazprom decision, case C-536/13. Prof. Hartley expressed his views on the case and explained new strategies developed under English law to protect the effects of choice of court agreements, like the one shown in AMT Futures Limited v. Marzillier, where the latter is sued for having induced the clients of the former to issue proceedings in Germany and to advance causes of action under German law, and thereby to breach the terms of the applicable exclusive jurisdiction and choice of law clauses. AMT claims damages against Marzillier for their having done so, its claim being a claim in tort for inducement of breach of contract

The heart of the meeting was the discussion on two GEDIP on-going projects: a proposal for a regulation on the law applicable to companies, and another on the jurisdiction, the applicable law, the recognition and enforcement of decisions and the cooperation in divorce matters. The first one is at its very final stage, while the second has barely started. From an outsiders point of view such a divergence is really interesting: it’s like assisting to the decoration of a baked cake (companies project), or to the preparation of the pastry (divorce project). Indeed, in terms of the intensity and quality of the debate it does not make much difference: but the fine-tuning of an almost-finished legal text is an amazing encaje de bolillos task, a hard exercise of concentration and deploy of expertise to manage and conciliate a bunch of imperative requisites, starting with internal consistency and consistency with other existing instruments. I am not going to reproduce here the details of the argument: a compte-rendu will be published in the GEDIP website in due time. I’d rather limit myself to highlight how impressive and strenuous is the work of finalizing a legal document, making sure that the policy objectives represented by one provision are not belied by another (the moment this happens the risk is high that the whole project, the underlying basics of it, is unconsciously being challenged), checking the wording to the last adverb, conjunction and preposition, deciding on what should be part of the text and what should rather be taken up in a recital, and so on. By way of example, let me mention the lively discussion on Sunday on the scope and drafting of art. 10 of the proposal on the law applicable to companies, concerning the overriding mandatory rules: I am really eager to see what the final outcome is after the heated debate on how to frame them in the context of a project where party autonomy is the overarching principle, at a time when companies are required to engage in the so-called corporate social responsibility whether they want it or not. Only this point has remained open and has been reported to the next meeting of the GEDIP next year.

I wouldn’t like to end this post without referring to the commitment of the GEDIP and its members with the civil society concerns. On Saturday Prof. Van Loon presented a document drafted in light of the plight of migrants, refugees, and asylum seekers in Europe. The text, addressed to the Member States and Institutions of the EU, aims to raise awareness of the immediate needs of these groups in terms of civil status and of measures to protect the most vulnerable persons within them. Reworked to take up the comments of the members of the GEDIP, a second draft was submitted on Sunday which resumes the problematic and insists on the role of PIL instruments in that context.

All in all, this has been an invaluable experience, for which I would like to thank the GEDIP and in particular the organizers of the event here, Prof. Christian Kohler and Prof. Patrick Kinsch.

The proceedings of the working sessions and the statements of the Group will soon be posted on its Website and published in various law reviews.

Arbitrage

Régimes matrioniaux ; Séparation de biens

Cour d'appel de Cayenne, Chambre des appels correctionnels, 10 septembre 2015

Travail

Non renvoyée au Conseil constitutionnel