International scientific conference “Dimensions of evidence in European civil procedure law” is scheduled for 20-22 March 2014 in Maribor, Slovenia. The conference will provide an opportunity to review 28 national reports on the issue, and to share and discusse new unifying tendencies in EU law on civil procedure. It is aimed at approving and extending the Report on application of the Council Regulation (EC) 1206/2001, providing additional guidelines for better and swifter implementation of the Regulation, along with conclusions on its possible modernisation. The conference program and other details, including the EU project within which the conference is taking place, are available at the conference official website.
For all interested in the maritime conflict of laws there is a book titled Regulations Rome I and Rome II and Maritime Law available here. This book is published by Giappichelli Editore and comes as a result of an EU funded project. Editors are Evangelos Vassilakakis, Nikolay Natov and Reuben Balzan and the contents include: Introduction. I. Regulations (EC) n. 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (“Rome I”) and (EC) n. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”) (C. Esplugues Mota, G. Palao Moreno, C. Azcárraga Monzonís - Spain). II. Marine insurance contracts under the Rome I and Brussels I Regulations: c?nflict of laws and jurisdiction issues (E. Vassilakakis, V. Kourtis - Greece). III. The discipline of maritime transport contracts under the Rome I and Brussels I Regulations: conflict of laws and jurisdictional issues (I. Queirolo, C. Cellerino - Italy). IV. Collisions and maritime salvage (Reuben Balzan, Keith A. Borg, Carlos Bugeja - Malta). V. Maritime environmental delict/tort (N. Natov, B.a Musseva, V. Pandov, D. Sarbinova, Z.i Ianakiev, I. Kirchev, M. Stankov - Bulgaria).
The Third International Scientific Conference Petar Sarcevic: Family and Children – European Expectations and National Reality will take place in Opatija, Croatia, on 20-21 September 2013. The programme of this conference includes the following speakers and topics: Friday, 20 September Prof. Dr. KATARINA BOELE-WOELKI Utrecht University Family Law in Europe: Past, Present, Future – Keynote Address Dr. BRANKA RESETAR J. J. Strossmayer University of Osijek European Principles on Parental Responsibility in the 2013 Draft Family Act Prof. Dr. NENAD HLACA University of Rijeka Misuse of the Right to Family Reunification Prof. Dr. AUKJE VAN HOEK University of Amsterdam Mediation in Family Matters with a Cross-Border Element – The Dutch Experience Saturday, 21 September Prof. PAUL BEAUMONT Aberdeen University A Possible Framework for a Hague Convention on International Surrogacy Prof. Dr. COSTANZA HONORATI University of Milano-Bicocca The New Italian Provisions on Unicity of Status Filiationis and their PIL Implications Dr. INES MEDIC MUSA University of Split Cross-Border Placement of a Child under the 1996 Hague Convention and the Brussels II Regulation Dr. MIRELA ZUPAN J. J. Strossmayer University of Osijek Key Issues in the Application of the Maintenance Regulation Dr. PATRICIA OREJUDO PRIETO DE LOS MOZOS Compultense University of Madrid Matrimonial Crisis under the Brussels II Regulation Dr. THALIA KRUGER University of Antwerp Partners Limping Accross Borders? Prof. Dr. VESNA TOMLJENOVIC and Dr. IVANA KUNDA EU General Court, University of Rijeka Rome III: Is it Right for Croatia? The conference is scheduled to commence at 4 pm on Friday 20 September and continue the next morning at the hotel 4 opatijska cvijeta, with privileged prices for the conference attendees sending this accommodation form. The registration form for the conference should be sent to email@example.com just as any questions regarding the conference. Here are also the details regarding the payment of the conference fee. This conference follows the two Petar Sarcevic conferences reported previously, the first on the Brussels I Regulation and the second on maritime law. There seems to be no better topic for the third conference devoted to Petar Sarcevic than family law. His academic interests focused not only on private international law but extensively also on family law. In 1998 he became an associate member and in 2001 full member of the prestigious Institut de droit international and was appointed as Rapporteur of the Fourth Commission on the topic “Registered Partnership in Private International Law”. He was a member of numerous other international associations, including the International Society of Family Law, where he served as its president from 1997 to 2000 and member of the Executive Council for almost 15 years. Unfortunately, he was unable to lecture at The Hague Academy of International Law on the topic “Private International Law Aspects of Cohabitation Without Formal Marriage” in July 2005.
The series of regional Southeast European private international law conferences is celebrating its 10th jubilee this year. There are four topics under the general conference title "A Decade in the Development of Private International Law: 2003-2012":
1. Private International Law of the European Union (rapporteur: Prof. Dr. Michael Bogdan, Faculty of Law Lund, Sweden); 2. National Systems of Private International Law and Regional Cooperation (rapporteur: Prof. Dr. Christa Jessel-Holst, Max-Planck Institute of Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany); 3. The Hague Conventions on Private International Law (rapporteur: Mr. Hans van Loon, Secretary General of the Hague Conference on Private International Law, Netherlands); 4. Comparative Private International Law (rapporteur: Prof. Dr. Kurt Siehr, Professor Emeritus at the Faculty of Law, Zürich, Switzerland, Free Research Associate at the Max-Planck Institute of Comparative and International Private Law, Hamburg, Germany).The conference will take place on 4th and 5th October 2012. Appropriately so, the hosting institution is the same one which hosted the first conference in the series, the Faculty of Law of the University of Nis in Serbia. Further details concerning the conference are accessible at the official conference website. The conference preceding this one was announced here.
Liber Amicorum for Professor Emeritus Krešimir Sajko was published within the Collected Papers of the Zagreb Law Faculty, volume 62, numbers 1-2. The papers in Croatian, German and English language published in the Liber Amicorum fall under the topics on private international law, international civil procedure, international commercial arbitration and alternative dispute resolution, as well as private law - comparative and Croatian. The table of contents is available here: 00 Nulti.indd. Professor Emeritus Sajko is one of the renowned Croatian professors of private international law, while his interests reach much further which is confirmed in his rich opus listed here 27 Popis radova.indd.
Benedetta Ubertazzi, an Assistant Professor of International Law at the Faculty of Law of the University of Macerata (Italy), has published a book titled “Exclusive Jurisdiction in Intellectual Property”. The issue of exclusive jurisdiction in intellectual property matters, especially those related to existence and validity of intellectual property rights, was revived in the recent years due to several important court cases, including the CJEU judgment in GAT v. LuK, the US ruling in Voda v. Cordis, and the UK decisions in Lucasfilm v. Ainsworth. In this book Benedetta Ubertazzi argues that the grounds regularly invoked to support the exclusive jurisdiction rules related to intellectual property rights do not stand the test of justifiableness. Moreover, she purports that such exclusive jurisdiction should be abandoned because it runs contrary to public international rules concerning the avoidance of a denial of justice. The book is published in 2012 by Mohr Siebeck as 273rd title in a series of books Studien zum ausländischen und internationalen Privatrecht (StudIPR) and available for order here, also as an e-book. The article by the same author on this topic was published in 15 Intellectual Property L. Rev. 357 (2011) and available here.
Professor Toshiyuki Kono of the Kyushu University is organising a two-day international conference titled "Regulatory Hybridization in the Transnational Sphere". Motivation for choosing this particular topic and the features of the conference are described by the organiser as follows:
[N]ational laws and public international law are no longer the exclusive regulatory authorities today. Instead, regulatory initiatives are shared by a complex network of nation States, international organizations and transnational private communities as a result of processes such as globalization, privatization, outsourcing, and self-regulation. Accordingly, national domestic laws, public international norms, and the newly proliferating private regulations co-exist in the current condition of transnational law. Furthermore, indirect connections between these three regulatory forms have increasingly developed, resulting in the proliferation of innovative hybrid forms of regulation. [...] The purpose of this conference is to explore various issues relating to hybrid normative structures in the transnational sphere. For this purpose, the conference underscores inter alia the following questions: 1. If regulatory hybridization does not simply consist of a reintegration of norms, and if it is not simply the delegation of the rule-making authority to self-regulatory institutions, what precisely does the contemporary hybridization of norms refer to? 2. What are the primary merits & de-merits of hybrid forms of governance? 3. Can the proliferation of hybrid forms of governance be explained solely by reference to efficiency or is it being driven by other factors? 4. What conceptual tools are most helpful in clarifying the precise form of regulatory hybridization?The conference will take place on 11 and 12 February 2012 at the Kyushu University, Nishijin Plaza, Fukuoka (Japan). Additional information is available at the conference website, including the program.
Our colleague Dr. Mireille van Eechoud, currently of double affiliation as an Associate Professor at the Institute for Information Law, Universiteit van Amsterdam and a Visiting Scholar at the University of Cambridge Centre for Intellectual Property and Information Law, was kind to share with us her views on the Painer case (Case C-145/10) and its relation to the preceding EU Court of Justice case law on the matter. Here is her full opinion:
Could the CJEU’s new stance on art. 6(1) Brussels Regulation 44/2001 be explained by the fact that the Court is very activist of late in shaping areas of copyright law which were not considered harmonized - of which the Painer case is itself an example? Or has the Court taken to heart the criticism unleashed by its Roche judgment on multiple defendants jurisdiction? The Advocate General certainly seemed to, citing among others the position of the European Max Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP). Whatever the reason, the Painer judgment from 1 December 2011 (Case C-145/10) signals a departure from the strict formalist-territorial approach to jurisdiction in intellectual property matters. The Court says that joining defendants under art. 6(1) Brussels Regulation is not precluded ‘solely because actions against several defendants for substantially identical copyright infringements are brought on national legal grounds which vary according to the Member States concerned’. In the case at hand, a freelance photographer from Austria claimed infringement of her copyright in portrait photos. She had made a series of portrait photos of a 6 year old girl at a nursery. The girl was later abducted and spent 8 unspeakably horrible years in captivity. The photographer gave prints of the portrait photos to the parents and police. Some of them were subsequently released by Austrian authorities in the context of the search. The girl’s eventual escape was a major news item across Europe. Lacking current photos, the defendant newspapers published the old portrait photos. The photographer had not been asked for permission, nor credited. The photographer brought various actions in Austrian courts. In these disputes the question whether there was copyright in the photos, or some other right, and what the scope of such protection is under German and Austrian law was hotly debated. The proceedings which led to a preliminary reference were against five newspapers: one established in Austria, the other four in Germany. The Austrian newspaper was only distributed in Austria; the German newspapers had primary distribution in Germany with additional distribution in Austria. So could the Austrian court assume jurisdiction for the infringements in Germany and Austria, with the Austrian newspaper as anchor-defendant under article 6 Brussels Regulation? The provision allows a plaintiff to consolidate actions against different defendants resident in the EU in one domestic court, ‘provided the claims are so closely connected that it is expedient to hear and determine them together to avoid the risk of irreconcilable judgments resulting from separate proceedings’. Previously, in the much criticized case C-539/03 - Roche Nederland v. Primus, the Court ruled that a close connection requires a same situation of law and of fact. When claims concern the infringement of territorially distinct patent rights (as granted under the European Patent Convention), for that reason alone there can be no risk of irreconcilable judgments because there is no ‘same situation of law’. In Painer, the Court seems to abandon that reading. The fact that the claims against the defendants concern infringement of the territorially distinct copyrights for Germany and Austria does not of itself preclude the possibility of consolidating them on the basis of article 6 Brussels Regulation. This is the more so, the Court adds, if the applicable laws in question are very similar. The referring Austrian court had concluded that was the case: German and Austrian copyright and related rights law share essentially the regimes for photographs (which is partly due to EU harmonization). Oddly enough, and unlike the Advocate General, the Court does not refer to its Roche judgment. Rather, it builds its reasoning primarily on Freeport (case C 98/06). There the Court stated that the fact that claims against defendants have different legal bases (e.g. in contract and tort) does not preclude application of art. 6 per se. The more obvious parallel in intellectual property matters isof course in situations where say the claim against one defendant is based in copyright infringement, and the claim against the co-defendant in contract (breach of a distribution agreement for example). I am not so sure that Freeport is easily applied to cases where infringement of copyright in different countries is at stake. In Roche, A European Patent had been granted through the European Patent Office, which resulted in a bundle of patents for the plaintiff, each equivalent to a national patent for each of the countries applied for. The subsistence and scope of these national patents is very similar across European Patent Convention states. The criticism of (among others) CLIP is that in cases where national intellectual property rights have been unified or harmonized to a great degree, it is artificial to bar a plaintiff from joining claims merely because formally speaking different territorial rights are involved (see the CLIP position). The defendants in Roche were all part of the same parent company, and basically sold the same allegedly infringing products in their respective local markets. Yet because each defendant acted locally (albeit under the direction of the parent), allegedly infringing the local patent, the Court did not accept there was a same situation of law and fact. In Painer, it is not clear whether there is any connection between the defendants. They may have acted similarly from the perspective of the plaintiff: each published photographs she made, over a similar period and as illustration of news about roughly the same matter. But I don’t see how that qualifies as a ‘same situation of fact’ for art. 6 purposes. Surely, the fact that persons behave in similar ways with respect to a (potentially) copyrighted image does not make the claims closely connected? The answer to that question is in the Court’s observation that ‘It is, in addition, for the referring court to assess, in the light of all the elements of the case, whether there is a connection between the different claims brought before it, that is to say a risk of irreconcilable judgments if those claims were determined separately. For that purpose, the fact that defendants against whom a copyright holder alleges substantially identical infringements of his copyright did or did not act independently may be relevant [my italics].’ I would argue that whether or not the co-defendants acted independently is in cases like these not a potentially relevant factor, but a crucial factor. If not, in this case our Austrian photographer could sue before Austrian courts any of the German publishers for distributing newspapers with the photos in Germany, because a completely different unrelated paper based in Austria happened to have printed the same photo. There has to be some relationship between the defendants, or at least between the anchor-defendant and the co-defendants. If not, all that is left is the foreseeability escape the Court articulated in Freeport.
Following the publication of the final Draft Principles for Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property which we reported here, the European Max-Planck Group on Conflict of Laws in Intellectual Property (CLIP) is now prepared to make their presentation. The conference organised for this purpose by will take place on 3-5 November in Berlin. The program is as follows: Thursday, November 3 Welcome reception Jürgen Basedow, Hamburg/Josef Drexl, Munich Friday, November 4 Introduction to the CLIP Project Jürgen Basedow, Hamburg The principle of territoriality and the rules of the CLIP Principles on jurisdiction Paul Torremans, Nottingham/Rochelle Dreyfuss, New York The principle of territoriality and the rules of the CLIP Principles on the applicable law Josef Drexl, Munich/Dário Moura Vicente, Lisbon The approach of the CLIP Principles to ubiquitous infringement Annette Kur, Munich/Rufus Pichler, New York Party autonomy and contracts under the CLIP Principles Axel Metzger, Hanover/Ivana Kunda, Rijeka The approach of the CLIP Principles to recognition and enforcement of judgements Pedro de Miguel Asensio, Madrid/Stefania Bariatti, Milan Saturday, November 5 The impact of the CLIP Principles on courts and arbitration Mireille van Eechoud, Cambridge (Chair)/Joachim Bornkamm, Freiburg/François Dessemontet, Lausanne/Sierd Schaafsma, The Hague/Winfried Tilmann, Düsseldorf The impact of the CLIP Principles on legislation and international law Alexander Peukert, Frankfurt (Chair)/Spiros Bazinas, UNCITRAL/Friedrich Bulst, DG Competition/Marta Pertegás, Hague Conference/Christian Wichard, WIPO The CLIP Principles and the parallel projects of the American Law Institute and Waseda/KOPILA Graeme Dinwoodie, Oxford (Chair)/Jane Ginsburg, New York/Toshiyuki Kono, Fukuoka Farewell address Josef Drexl, Munich
The conference “Recent trends in European Private International Law – Challenges for the national legislations of the South East European countries” is held in Skopje, Macedonia on 24 September 2011. This is the 9th conference in the series of regional private international law conferences, the most recent being announced here. This conference will gather number of private international lawyers who prepare to discuss questions related to impact the European Union codifications in the field have on their national laws as well as issues that arise in the context of European integration. The program is below: 9:00 am to 9:45 am Registration of the participants 9:45 am to 10:00 am Opening of the conference 10:00 am to 11:15 am I panel General issues of private international law Mirko Zivkovic, PhD, University Nis Discussion 11:15 am to 11:30 am Coffee break 11:30 am to 1:00 pm II panel Integration of EU PIL into national PIL codifications of the region (conflict of laws) Zlatan Meskic, PhD, University of Zenica “Integration of EU Private International law into national PIL codifications of the region” Mirela Župan, PhD, University of Osijek "Normiranje mjerodavnog prava za osobno ime - novina budu?eg hrvatskog Zakona o me?unarodnom privatnom pravu" / "Regulating cross border personal name issues - novelty of new Croatian PIL code ” Ivana Kunda, PhD, University of Rijeka "Intellectual Property Contracts in EU Conflict of Laws" Discussion 1:00 pm to 2:00 pm Lunch at University Restaurant 2:00 pm to 3:45 pm III panel Integration of EU PIL into national PIL codifications of the region (influence of EU civil procedure) Ales Galic, PhD, University of Ljubljana “Uredba Brisel 1 – temelj evropskog gra?anskog procesnogprava / The Brussels I Regulation – the Cornerstone of the European Civil Procedure” Vesna Lazic, PhD, University of Utrecht “The Commission's Proposal to Revise the EC Jurisdiction Regulation: the amendment of the lis pendens rule and of the arbitration exception” Evangelos Vassilakakis, PhD, Aristotle University Thessaloniki "The Unification of European Procedural Law and its Impact on Agency and Distributorship Agreements" Vesna Tomljenovic, PhD, University of Rijeka "Forum of necessity – novelty in the new Croatian PIL Act" Jasmina Alihodzic, PhD, University of Tuzla "Pravila o me?unarodnoj nadležnosti kod pojedina?nih ugovora o radu u pravu Evropske unije i Bosne i Hercegovine" / “International jurisdiction for individual employment contracts in EU and Bosnia and Herzegovina” Gjorgje Krivokapic LLM, University of Belgrade, and Ugljesa Grusic LLM, London School of Economics “Zasto Srbija treba da pristupi Haskoj konvenciji o sporazumima o nadleznosti suda?" / “Why should Serbia access Hague Choice of Court Convention?” Sanja Marjanovic, PhD, University of Nis, "Jurisdikcioni imunitet strane drzave izmedju unutrasnjeg i medjunarodnog prava" / “Jurisdictional immunity of a foreign state – between domestic and international law” Apostolos Anthimos, PhD, Panelist at the CAC for .eu ADR, Greece Online Dispute Resolution - The .eu ADR Paradigm Discussion 3:45 pm to 4:00 pm Coffee break 4:00 pm to 4:45 pm IV panel Conflict of laws on property Slavko Djordjevic, PhD, University of Kragujevac "Merodavno pravo za stvarnopravne odnose sa elementom inostranosti - de lege lata i de lege ferenda" / “Determining applicable law for Property Relations with foreign element – de lege lata and de lege ferenda” Discussion 4:45 pm to 5:15 pm Christa Yesell Holst, GIZ “Support to development of draft laws and model solutions in the field of Private International Law (Closing of the component)” 5:15 pm Closing of the conference 8:30 pm Dinner at National Restaurant “Dukat”