The first issue of the Journal of Private International Law for 2014 is out.
First Cornerstones of the EU Rules on Cross-Border Child Cases: The Jurisprudence of the Court of Justice of the European Union on the Brussels IIa Regulation from C to Health Service Executive by Anatol Dutta and Andrea Schulz
Since the Brussels IIa Regulation became applicable for national courts in 2005, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) can be welcomed within the circle of the European family courts. The Court has so far dealt, in particular, with the part of Brussels IIa dedicated to child matters, in case C in 2007, in Rinau in 2008, in A and Deticek in 2009 and in Povse, Purrucker I, McB,Purrucker II, Aguirre Zarraga and Mercredi in 2010. In 2012, a judgment concerning the cross-border placement of children followed in the case of Health Service Executive (HSE). Some aspects of these decisions are reviewed in this paper but not so as to present a comprehensive analysis of the Regulation. Rather the article shall provide – as a kind of series of interconnected case notes – the interested reader with a first overview on a rather dynamic area of EU family law as reflected in the case-law of the Court.
This paper will critically evaluate the proposals for reform of the European Insolvency Regulation – regulation 1346/2000 – advanced by the European Commission. While criticised by some commentators as unsatisfactory, the Regulation – is widely understood to work in practice. The Commission proposals have been described as ‘modest’ and it is fair to say that they amount to a ‘service’ rather than a complete overhaul of the Regulation. The proposals will be considered under the following heads (1) General Philosophy; (2) Extension of the Regulation to cover pre-insolvency procedures; (3) Jurisdiction to open insolvency proceedings; (4) Co-ordination of main and secondary proceedings; (5) Groups of Companies; (6) Applicable law; (7) Publicity and improving the position of creditors. A final section concludes. The general message is that while there is much that is laudable in the Commission proposals, there is also much that has been missed out, particularly in the context of applicable law. The proposals reflect an approach that, in this particular area, progress is best achieved by a series of small steps rather than by a great leap forward. This is not necessarily an approach that is mirrored in other areas of European policy making.
Actio pauliana grants protection to the creditors against detrimental transactions and it is an important tool in the European insolvency system. When an actio pauliana is an ancillary action to collective insolvency proceedings it usually falls outside the scope of the Brussels I Regulation. The problem is that actio pauliana falls also outside the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR) if the insolvency proceedings to which it is related are not mentioned in Annex A of the EIR. These gaps are subjects to amendments in the Commission proposal for the EIR reform. When an actio pauliana falls within the scope of the EIR the lex concursus applies unless it is not possible to challenge the transaction according to the law which normally governs it. If this “veto” has succeeded the lex concursus is not applicable. In cross-border situations actio pauliana raises a number of complicated issues concerning jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforceability.
This article examines recent English authorities concerning the forum (non) conveniens doctrine. It seeks to demonstrate that, largely as a consequence of a disproportionately broad discretionary framework under its second limb, the doctrine’s application has led to numerous problems. The article argues that, for both pragmatic and theoretical reasons, the status quo cannot be maintained. In this respect, its key contribution is to identify a doctrinal avenue through which to limit (rather than completely discard) the court’s discretion at the second stage. The article’s basic thesis is that the court’s discretion under the doctrine’s second limb should be curtailed in line with the doctrinal framework underpinning the protection of a person’s right to a fair trial under Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (as defined in expulsion cases).
During the revision of the Brussels I Regulation several issues pertaining to the interface between arbitration and the Regulation were discussed. Some of the issues were parallel proceedings and conflicting decisions between courts and between courts and arbitral tribunals and the lack of a uniform rule on the law applicable to the existence and validity of an arbitration agreement. This article examines these issues in order to find out whether they are only European or also inherent in the international regulation of international commercial arbitration. The article examines to which extent these issues have already been addressed in the international regulation. Moreover, the article analyses the issues from a European perspective by analysing the interface between the Brussels I Regulation and arbitration and by looking into the objectives of the EU judicial cooperation in civil matters. Finally, the article looks into what the future might hold for these two issues.
The enforcement of a foreign judgment is the reward for often protracted and expensive transnational litigation. This post-judgment aspect of Private International Law is as important as the often-discussed pre-judgment considerations of choice of jurisdiction and choice of law. Regrettably, the position in Nigerian law on the enforcement of foreign judgments is far from coherent and certain. Indeed, it is in a lacunose and largely confused state. It is argued that a coherent and efficient legal regime for the enforcement of foreign judgments is a necessary adjunct to the heightened diverse global commercial relations of contemporary times between and amongst developing nations of Africa and between those African States and the international community at large. The extant state of affairs in Nigeria is the result of an admixture of a historical legacy of antedated laws, inefficient law revision processes and an inherently weak law reform system. The article conducts an audit of Nigerian law (statute and case law) in this area and the central argument is that there is a pressing need for a holistic law reform starting with a paradigm shift from Private International Law orthodoxy regarding the conceptual predicate of reciprocity as the basis of the statutory regime for the enforcement of foreign judgments at common law.