La Ley-Unión Europea, April 2015

The latest issue of the Spanish issue La Ley-Unión Europea (April 2015), was released last week. Besides the usual sections dealing with case law and current developments within the EU you’ll find therein the following contributions – in Spanish, abstract in English:

S. Sánchez Lorenzo, “El nuevo sistema de reconocimiento y ejecución de resoluciones en el Reglamento (UE) 1215/2012 («Bruselas I bis»)”. Abstract: The Regulation (EU) 1215/2000 introduces significant modifications related to recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments in Spain. The most important ones deal with automatic recognition of enforceability, whose application often requires specific adaptations in domestic civil procedural law.

J. González Vega, “La «teoría del big bang» o la creciente distancia entre Luxemburgo y Estrasburgo. Comentarios al Dictamen 2/13, del Tribunal de Justicia, de 18 de diciembre de 2014 sobre la adhesión de la Unión Europea al Convenio Europeo de Derechos Humanos” Abstract: In its Opinion 2/13 the European Union’s Court of Justice has declared the draft accession agreement of the European Union to the European Convention on Human Rights contrary to the provisions of the Treaties and to Protocol no. 8 of the Treaty of Lisbon. The decision of the Court consistently puts into question the essential points of agreement: Firstly, it points out the specificity of the Union —as a distinctive subject— and it unambiguously states the need to preserve the autonomy of its law and the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court, threatened by the project. In its analysis, mainly laconic and formalistic, sometimes alarmist, it questions the very notion of external control and its jurisdictional monopoly threatened by the «emerging» preliminary ruling to the ECHR, conceived by the Protocol No. 16. Moreover, it rejects the regulation of the status of co-respondent and prior involvement procedure and questions strongly the jurisdictional immunity of CFSP acts. Furthermore, its decision, albeit expected, leaves open the question on the ways to address the negative of the Court, given the imperative proviso on the accession to the ECHR established in the art. 6.2 TEU. Also, inasmuch as it can generate conflicting dynamics with other actors involved in the process of protection of fundamental rights -not only the ECHR but apex national jurisdictions-, the Opinion could have a deep impact in European multilevel system of human rights protection.

 J. García López, “La Asociación Transatlántica para el Comercio y la Inversión: VIII Ronda de negociaciones”. Abstract: The eighth round of negotiations on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership between the EU and the US was held in Brussels last February, concluding with advances in Regulatory Cooperation and discrepancies in Financial Services.

L.M. Jara Rolle, “Contratos tipo de servicios jurídicos concluidos por un abogado con una persona física que actúa con un propósito ajeno a su actividad professional”. Abstract: Unfair terms in consumer contracts extend to standard form contracts for legal services, as contracts concluded by a lawyer with a natural person acting for purposes which are outside his trade, business or profession.

R. Lafuente Sánchez, “Competencia internacional y protección del inversor en acciones por responsabilidad contractual y delictual frente al banco emisor de títulos (a propósito del asunto Kolassa)”. Abstract: This paper aims at analysing the scope of application of the Brussels I Regulation in private law relationships that stem from cross-border marketing of investment services in the European Union. In the light with the recent ECJ case law, the possible attribution of international jurisdiction to the courts of the investor’s domicile is examined; either under the applicable forum over consumer contracts, the forum of special jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, or in matters relating to tort, delict or quasi-delict.

M. Otero Crespo, “Las obligaciones precontractuales de información, explicación adecuada y de comprobación de solvencia en el ámbito de los contratos de préstamo al consumo. Comentario a la STJUE, Sala Cuarta, de 18 de diciembre de 2014, asunto C- 449/13, CA Consumer Finance sa v I. Bakkaus/ Sres. Bonato). Abstract: On 18 December 2014, the Court of Justice of the EU delivered its judgment in the case of CA Consumer Finance v I. Bakkaus and Bonato, concerning the pre- contractual obligations of credit providers. according to this decision, creditors must prove that they have fulfilled their pre-contractual obligations to provide information and explanations – so that the borrower can make an informed choice when subscribing a loan- and to check the creditworthiness of borrowers. Further, the Court highlights that the credit provider cannot shift the burden of proof to the consumer through a standard term.

Comments on this entry are closed.