Conflict of Laws
  • About
  • Editorial board
  • Subscription
  • Submission
  • Materials
  • Contact
  • Click to open the search input field Click to open the search input field Search
  • Menu Menu

COM(2009)154 final in Spanish

May 27, 2010/3 Comments/in /by Marta Requejo
image_pdfimage_print
Just a brief post to report a “minor” error in the Spanish version of the Proposal for a Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and authentic instruments in matters of succession and the creation of a European Certificate of Succession: see art. 27.2 in Spanish
 
“En particular, la aplicación de una disposición de la ley designada por el presente Reglamento solo podrá considerarse contraria al orden público del foro si sus disposiciones relativas a la reserva hereditaria son diferentes de las disposiciones vigentes en el foro”.

 

and compare it with English (French, Italian…) versions:

“In particular, the application of a rule of the law determined by this Regulation may not be considered to be contrary to the public policy of the forum on the sole ground that its clauses regarding the reserved portion of an estate differ from those in force in the forum”.

But, who knows, may be there is a way to reach a common understanding of the texts.

 

Share this entry
  • Share on Facebook
  • Share on X
  • Share on WhatsApp
  • Share on Pinterest
  • Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Tumblr
  • Share on Vk
  • Share on Reddit
  • Share by Mail
https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png 0 0 Marta Requejo https://conflictoflaws.net/News/2020/08/CoL_Banner-1.png Marta Requejo2010-05-27 09:40:532010-05-27 09:40:53COM(2009)154 final in Spanish
3 replies
  1. G. A. Dekker says:
    May 27, 2010 at 12:15 pm

    I know little Spanish, but this is probably the same error that occurs in the Dutch version of the proposal (i.e. a missing negative). Article 27(2) in Dutch provides:
    “2. De toepassing van een bepaling van het door deze verordening aangewezen recht kan met name slechts als onverenigbaar met de openbare orde van het land van de rechter worden beschouwd om de enkele reden dat de modaliteiten betreffende het wettelijk erfdeel verschillen van die welke in het land van de rechter gelden.”

  2. Rafael says:
    May 27, 2010 at 2:38 pm

    There is, at least, another “error”: Art. 5.1 of the Spanish version establishes that the court seised in accordance with art. 4 may “inhibirse”, that means “decline jurisdiction” and not merely “stay proceedings”.
    Ah!… EU, a paradise for translators!

  3. Marta Requejo says:
    May 28, 2010 at 7:39 am

    In the Spanish version the problem is not only a missing negative. Literally, art. 27.2 says that the application of a provision of the law designated by this Regulation may ONLY be considered contrary to the public policy of the forum, etc.

Comments are closed.

Categories

  • Views
  • News

Most Recent Posts

  • Recognition of Italian Extrajudicial Divorces in Tunisia — Between Methodological Uncertainty and the Need to Preserve Continuity of Personal Status Across Borders August 9, 2026
  • Private International Law and European Society August 4, 2026
  • The New Zealand Supreme Court’s judgment in Kea Investments Ltd v Wikeley on anti-enforcement relief August 3, 2026
  • Beyond Domicile: The BHP Litigation and the Functional Interconnection of Public and Private International Law August 3, 2026
  • Conflicts of jurisdiction in Senegal: lesson from the Senegalese Supreme Court on Lis Pendens and the Exequatur of foreign judgments July 27, 2026
  • Adoption in the proposal for a European Parenthood Regulation July 21, 2026
  • Copyright, Targeting and Geo-Blocking: The CJEU Stirs the Pot July 15, 2026
  • A Follow-Up: The German Judges Association’s Response to the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions July 15, 2026
  • Private International Law Dimensions of Singapore’s New Legislation to Combat Online Harms July 14, 2026
  • The 1961 HCCH Apostille Convention: Why All African Countries Should Ratify It? — Insights from Judicial Practice in Africa July 14, 2026
  • The enforcement of an advance on costs for substitute performance at the expense of a Russian debtor in German-French legal relations July 2, 2026
  • “Yes, in principle, but not quite there yet…” – Some Observations on the Public Consultation on the HCCH Draft Text of a Future Convention on Parallel Proceedings and Related Actions June 29, 2026
  • Judgment Mobility Rules in India’s Private International Law Regime: No place for a revision au fond? June 26, 2026
  • Nothing to See Here: The CJEU’s Decision in Case C-232/25 Idzinski June 18, 2026
  • Refusal to Enforce in Egypt of a Californian (U.S.) Judgment for Lack of Reciprocity: What Has Gotten into the Egyptian Supreme Court? June 15, 2026
Link to: Michaels on the U.S. Conflict ofLaws Link to: Michaels on the U.S. Conflict ofLaws Michaels on the U.S. Conflict ofLaws Link to: ASADIP (American Association of Private International Law) and CEDEP co-organize the 2nd conference on Arbitration in Latin America Link to: ASADIP (American Association of Private International Law) and CEDEP co-organize the 2nd conference on Arbitration in Latin America ASADIP (American Association of Private International Law) and CEDEP co-organize...
Scroll to top Scroll to top Scroll to top