Entries by Krzysztof Pacula

A quarterly on civil procedure (“Polish Civil Procedure”) publishes a special issue on international family law with a particular focus on the Regulation 2019/1111

/in /by

The quarterly “Polish Civil Procedure” (“Polski Proces Cywilny”) just published a special issue on international procedural law and private international law. The issue is entirely devoted to international family law. Under the common title “New efforts in judicial cooperation in European child abduction cases”, it gathers contributions drafted in English and coming from authors representing […]

CJEU on law governing time limits for lodging claims in secondary insolvency proceedings in the case ALPINE BAU, C-25/20

/in /by

Under Article 32(2) of the Regulation No 1346/2000 (the “old” Insolvency Regulation, now repealed by the Regulation 2015/848), “the liquidators in the main and any secondary proceedings shall lodge in other proceedings claims which have already been lodged in the proceedings for which they were appointed, provided that the interests of creditors in the latter […]

CJEU on international element requirement for jurisdiction over consumer contracts in the case Commerzbank, C-296/20

/in /by

Is the international (foreign) element required at the outset, at the time of conclusion of the contract, in order to trigger the applicability of the rules on jurisdiction of the Lugano II Convention on jurisdiction over consumer contracts and to protect the consumer from being sued outside of the State of his (her) domicile? This […]

CJEU on the (in)admissibility of the request for a preliminary ruling on the Succession Regulation lodged by a notary in the case OKR, C-387/20

/in /by

In its judgments delivered in the cases WB, C-658/17 and E.E., C-80/19, the Court of Justice already addressed the question whether a notary dealing with succession-related matters is a “court” for the purposes of the Succession Regulation. In these cases, however, the requests for a preliminary ruling originated from the proceedings pending before the national […]

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe on action for unjust enrichment and contract/tort distinction under Brussels I Regulation in the case HRVATSKE ŠUME, C-242/20

/in /by

AG Saugmandsgaard Øe observes in his Opinion presented today in the case HRVATSKE ŠUME, C-242/20, the Court of Justice has already faced requests for a preliminary ruling where arose a question on qualification of an action for unjust enrichment for the purposes of the Brussels I Regulation. He notes that no conclusive finding has been […]