On 17 May, the Centre de droit comparé, européen et international of the University of Lausanne will host a joint conference with the British Institute of International and Comparative Law on ‘The UK, Switzerland, Norway and the EU: Cross-border Business Relations after Brexit’. The flyer can be found here. The conference, organised by Professor Eva Lein, intends to provide a forum to discuss the legal uncertainties arising from Brexit with regard to cross-border commercial relations between British, EU, Norwegian and Swiss companies companies.

It will feature the following panels:

Welcome: Eva Lein (UNIL / BIICL)

Panel 1: Trade and Services
Chair: Spyros Maniatis (BIICL / Queen Mary University of London)

• Andreas Ziegler (UNIL)
• Thomas Sebastian (Monckton Chambers)
• Kaja Sandvig (DLA Piper, Oslo)
• Federico Ortino (King’s College London / Clifford Chance)

Panel 2: Company Law and Insolvencies
Chair: Adam Johnson QC (Herbert Smith Freehills)

• Stefania Bariatti (University of Milan)
• Rodrigo Rodriguez (University of Lucerne)
• John Whiteoak (Herbert Smith Freehills, London)
• Kern Alexander (University of Zurich)

Panel 3: Dispute Resolution
Chair: Andrea Bonomi (UNIL)

• Diana Wallis (former vice-President of the European Parliament / ELI)
• Trevor Hartley (London School of Economics)
• Benoît Arthur Mauron (Lalive)
• Peter Arnt Nielsen (Copenhagen Business School)
• Eva Lein (UNIL / BIICL)

Prof. Makridou and Prof. Diamantopoulos are hosting on 23/04/2018 a seminar on the law of evidence in Spain and Greece. The event starts at 09.00 and will take place in the conference room of the Central Library of the Aristotle University of Thessaloniki.

The program of the seminar is the following:

CHAIRMAN

Prof. Konstantinos Polyzogopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

SPEAKERS

Prof. Fernando Gascón Inchausti, Complutense University of Madrid

Prof. Enrique Vallines Garcia, Complutense University of Madrid

Prof. Kalliopi Makridou,  Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

Ass. Prof. Ioannis Delikostopoulos, National and Kapodistrian University of Athens

CONCLUSIONS

Prof. Georgios Diamantopoulos, Aristotle University of Thessaloniki

 

This seminar forms part of a project initiated by Prof. Makridou and Prof. Diamantopoulos back in 2014. In the course of the past 5 years, the professors have edited three volumes, published in the series ‘Greek and Foreign Civil Procedural Systems’, Sakkoulas Publications.

Vol. 1: Issues of Estoppel and Res Judicata in Ango-American and Greek Law (2014)

Vol. 2: Civil trial of first and second instance according to Swiss and Greek Law (2014)

Vol. 3: Provisional measures in Italian and Greek Law  (2016)

Yehya Badr, Associate Professor at the Alexandria University, Egypt, published an article “A Cure From Rome for Montreal’s Illness: Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation and Filling the Void in the 1999 Montreal Convention’s Regulation of Carrier’s Liability for Personal Injury”, in (2018) 83 JOURNAL OF AIR LAW AND COMMERCE 83.  The abstract reads:

“An examination of the 1999 Montreal Convention shows that the drafters did not intend to lay down a comprehensive treaty that would organize a carrier’s liability for personal injury to passengers. They opted to achieve a certain level of uniformity through enacting a set of rules that tackled several key issues such as the grounds for a carrier’s liability, the available defenses, and the limits on the recoverable damages. Consequently, some unaddressed issues created a void in the Montreal Convention and were then left without a clear remedy. In this article, a distinction is made between two types of voids: first, the definitional void describes the lack of definition for several key terms used in the Montreal Convention, such as “accident” and “carrier.” Second, the regulatory void describes the lack of rules to address issues such as determining the effect of a passenger’s contributory negligence as a defense for liability and the right of action. This article demonstrates that national courts have resorted either to the forum’s law or the forum’s choice-of-law rules to fill the void in the Montreal Convention. As a result, international uniformity of results cannot be achieved nor is there any predictability. This article recommends the adoption of Article 5 of the Rome I Regulation as a solution to this problem. Doing so would give both parties the freedom to choose a law from a predetermined list, and fill the above mentioned voids, while providing alternative choice-of-law rules if the parties decided not to choose a law to govern their contract for air carriage.”

The full text can be downloaded here.

Today, the EU Commission presented its long awaited proposal for a directive on representative actions for the protection of the collective interests of consumers (COM (2018) 184/3). The proposal and other related documents are available here. The directive shall appply to domestic and cross-border infringements (Article 2(1), 2nd sentence). With regard to the latter group of cases, the directive “is without prejudice to the Union rules on private international law, in particular rules related to court jurisdiction and applicable law” (Article 2(3)). However, Article 16 sets out some rules relevant for cross-border representative actions. It ensures the mutual recognition of the legal standing of qualified entities designated in advance in one Member State to seek representative action in another Member State. Moreover, it enables qualified entities from different Member States to act jointly within a single representative action in front of a single forum competent under relevant Union and national rules. The pertinent provision reads as follows:

“Article 16
Cross-border representative actions

1. Member States shall take the measures necessary to ensure that any qualified entity designated in advance in one Member State in accordance with Article 4(1) may apply to the courts or administrative authorities of another Member State upon the presentation of the publicly available list referred to in that Article. The courts or administrative authorities shall accept this list as proof of the legal standing of the qualified entity without prejudice to their right to examine whether the purpose of the qualified entity justifies its taking action in a specific case.

2. Member States shall ensure that where the infringement affects or is likely to affect consumers from different Member States the representative action may be brought to the competent court or administrative authority of a Member State by several qualified entities from different Member States, acting jointly or represented by a single qualified entity, for the protection of the collective interest of consumers from different Member States.

3. For the purposes of cross-border representative actions, and without prejudice to the rights granted to other entities under national legislation, the Member States shall communicate to the Commission the list of qualified entities designated in advance. Member States shall inform the Commission of the name and purpose of these qualified entities. The Commission shall make this information publicly available and keep it up to date.

4. If a Member State or the Commission raises concerns regarding the compliance by a qualified entity with the criteria laid down in Article 4(1), the Member State that designated that entity shall investigate the concerns and, where appropriate, revoke the designation if one or more of the criteria are not complied with.”