Views
NIKI continued
Written by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany
The Spanish airline Vueling Airlines S.A. is still intending to acquire large parts of the NIKI business. Vueling is part of the European aviation group IAG, which also includes British Airways, Iberia, Aer Lingus and LEVEL. The provisional insolvency administrator of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH, therefore, will continue to drive forward the sales process. Vueling has provided interim financing of up to € 16.5 million to finance the NIKI business until the closing of the purchase agreement. This funding is only sufficient for a few weeks. Read more
NIKI, COMI, Air Berlin and Art. 5 EIR recast
Written by Lukas Schmidt, Research Fellow at the Center for Transnational Commercial Dispute Resolution (TCDR) of the EBS Law School, Wiesbaden, Germany.
The Regional Court of Berlin has, on the basis of the immediate appeal against the order of the provisional insolvency administration on the assets of NIKI Luftfahrt GmbH (under Austrian law), repealed the decision of the District Court of Charlottenburg (see here) as it finds that international jurisdiction lies with Austrian and not German courts. In its decision, the regional court has dealt with the definition of international jurisdiction, which is based on the debtor’s centre of main interests (‘COMI’). According to the provisions of the European Insolvency Regulation, that is the place where the debtor usually conducts the administration of its interests and that is ascertainable by third parties. Read more
Implementation of the EAPO in Greece
By virtue of Article 42 Law 4509/2017, a new provision has been added to the Code of Civil Procedure, bearing the title of the EU Regulation. Article 738 A CCP features 6 paragraphs, which are (partially) fulfilling the duty of the Hellenic Republic under Article 50 EAPO. In brief the provision states the following:
- 1: The competent courts to issue a EAPO are the Justice of the Peace for those disputes falling under its subject matter jurisdiction, and the One Member 1st Instance Court for the remaining disputes. It is noteworthy that the provision does not refer to the court, but to its respective judge, which implies that no oral hearing is needed.
- 2: The application is dismissed, if
- it does not fulfil the requirements stipulated in the Regulation, or if
- the applicant does not state the information provided by Article 8 EAPO, or if
- (s)he does not proceed to the requested amendments or corrections of the application within the time limit set by the Judge.
Notice of dismissal may take place by an e-mail sent to the account of the lawyer who filed the application. E-signature and acknowledgment of receipt are pre-requisites for this form of service.
The applicant may lodge an appeal within 30 days following notification. The hearing follows the rule established under Article 11 EAPO. The competent courts are the ones established under the CCP.
- 3: The debtor enjoys the rights and remedies provided by Articles 33-38 EAPO. Without prejudice to the provisions of the EU Regulation, the special chapter on garnishment proceedings (Articles 712 & 982 et seq. CCP) is to be applied.
- 4: If the EAPO has been issued prior to the initiation of proceedings to the substance of the matter, the latter shall be initiated within 30 days following service to the third-party.
If the applicant failed to do so, the EAPO shall be revoked ipso iure, unless the applicant has served a payment order within the above term.
- 5: Upon finality of the judgment issued on the main proceedings or the payment order mentioned under § 4, the successful EAPO applicant acquires full rights to the claim.
- 6: The liability of the creditor is governed by Article 13 Paras 1 & 2 EAPO. Article 703 CCP (damages against the creditor caused by enforcement against the debtor) is applied analogously.
Some additional remarks related to the Explanatory Report would provide a better insight to the foreign reader.
- There is an explicit reference to the German and Austrian model.
- The placement of the provision (i.e. within the 5th Book of the CCP, on Interim Measures) clarifies the nature of the EAPO as an interim measure, despite its visible connotations to an order, which is regulated in the 4th chapter of the 4th Book, on Special Proceedings. Nevertheless, the explanatory report acknowledges resemblance of the EAPO to a payment order.
- There is no need to provide information on the authority competent to enforce the EAPO, given that the sole person entrusted with execution in Greece is the bailiff.
The initiative taken by the MoJ is more than welcome. However, a follow-up is imperative, given that Article 738 A CCP does not provide all necessary information listed under Article 50 EAPO.
News
The Relationship between the Hague Choice of Court and the Hague Judgments Convention
Aygun Mammadzada (Swansea University) will be the main speaker at the upcoming MECSI Seminar, scheduled to take place on 22 November 2022, at the Catholic University of the Sacred Heart in Milan.
The title of the seminar is The Relationship between the Hague Choice of Court and the Hague Judgments Convention – A Major International Breakthrough?
Zeno Crespi Reghizzi (University of Milan) will serve as discussant.
Attendance is free, on site and on line (via MS Teams). Further information, including the link to join the seminar on line, are found here.
For queries, write an e-mail to pietro.franzina@unicatt.it.
[This post is cross-posted at the EAPIL blog.]
The boundaries of the insolvency exclusion under the EAPO Regulation: A recent judgment from Slovakia
Carlos Santaló Goris, Researcher at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for International, European and Regulatory Procedural Law and Ph.D. candidate at the University of Luxembourg, offers an analysis of some aspects of a judgment concerning the EAPO Regulation rendered by the District Court of Žilina (Okresný súd Žilina), Slovakia.
Can insolvency practitioners apply for a European Account Preservation Order (“EAPO”) against insolvent debtors to freeze their bank accounts? The District Court of Žilina (Okresný súd Žilina) in Slovakia confronted this issue in an EAPO application it received on January 2022. The EAPO Regulation expressly excludes the use of the EAPO Regulation for “claims against a debtor in relation to whom bankruptcy proceedings, proceedings for the winding-up of insolvent companies or other legal persons, judicial arrangements, compositions, or analogous proceedings have been opened” (Art. 2(2)(c) EAPO Regulation). This is the same exclusion that can be found in Art. 1(2)(b) the Brussels I bis Regulation. Recital 8 of the EAPO Regulation reiterates that the Regulation “should not apply to claims against a debtor in insolvency proceedings” remarking that the EAPO “can be issued against the debtor once insolvency proceedings as defined in Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 (now Regulation No 2015/848)”. At the same time, Recital 18 states that that exclusion should not prevent the use of an EAPO “to secure the recovery of detrimental payments made by such a debtor to third parties”.
In the instant Slovakian case, an insolvency practitioner requested an EAPO application against an insolvent debtor. The objective was to integrate the funds recovered through the EAPO into the insolvency estate. The insolvency practitioner applied for the EAPO once no assets were found in Slovakia. The EAPO application included a request to investigate the debtors’ bank accounts in Austria. One of the creditors suspected the debtor “had misappropriated funds and stashed them in offshore accounts”. The District Court of Žilina (Okresný súd Žilina) considered that, since the EAPO was requested against the debtor, such a request fell within the insolvency exclusion. Thus, the EAPO Regulation was not applicable. This court embraced the most literal sense of the insolvency exclusion. However, from a teleological perspective, the insolvency exclusion aims at preventing individual creditors from using the EAPO to undermine an insolvency estate during bankruptcy proceedings. In this case, the EAPO was used in favour of the insolvency estate. Had the EAPO been successful, it would have served to increase it.
The present case serves as an example to show that the boundaries of the EAPO insolvency exclusion are blurred. Perhaps, in the future, a similar case might reach the CJEU and help cast further light on the EAPO’s insolvency exclusion.
Date change: AMEDIP’s annual seminar to take place from 23 to 25 November 2022
The Mexican Academy of Private International and Comparative Law (AMEDIP) will be holding its annual XLV Seminar entitled “Private International Law in the conformation of a new international order” (el derecho internacional privado en la conformación de un nuevo orden internacional) from 23 to 25 November 2022.
This will be a hybrid event. The seminar will take place at the Escuela Libre de Derecho (Mexico City). The registration fee is $300 MXN for students and $500 MXN for general public.
This event will be streamed live on AMEDIP’s social media channels and Zoom (see below for details). Participation is free of charge but there is a fee of $500 MXN if a certificate of attendance is requested (80% of participation in the event is required).
Zoom details:
https://us02web.zoom.us/j/5554563931?pwd=WE9uemJpeWpXQUo1elRPVjRMV0tvdz09
ID de reunión: 555 456 3931
Código de acceso: 00000
For more information, click here.
The program is available below.
Programa.
MIÉRCOLES 23 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022.
| 10:10 a 10:20 HRS. | INAUGURACIÓN.
Mario Héctor Blancas Vargas Vocal de la Junta Directiva Escuela Libre de derecho Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Academia Mexicana de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado (AMEDIP).
|
| 10:20 a 11:00 HRS | CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL |
|
Leonel Pereznieto Castro “El Pluralismo de Leyes frente al Derecho Internacional Privado”
|
|
receso 11:00 – 11:10 hrs.
|
|
|
11:10 a 12:10 HRS. |
MESA I
“COOPERACIÓN PROCESAL INTERNACIONAL Y EL PROYECTO DE CÓDIGO NACIONAL DE PROCEDIMIENTOS CIVILES Y FAMILIARES”
|
|
Moderadora: Ligia C. González Lozano Miembro de Número |
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. José Roberto de Jesús Treviño Sosa.
(México) |
“La Cooperación Procesal Internacional en el marco del Proyecto de código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares”.
|
| 2. Carlos e. Odriozola Mariscal.
(México) |
“La regulación de la cooperación procesal internacional en el próximo Código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares: Reflexiones sobre su eficacia”.
|
| 3. Jorge Alberto Silva Silva.
(México) |
“Cláusula de reciprocidad en el Proyecto de Código Nacional de Procedimientos Civiles y Familiares”.
|
| 4. Nuria Marchal Escalona.
(España) |
“Hacia la digitalización en el ámbito de la cooperación transfronteriza en la justicia civil”. |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins). |
|
|
receso 12:30 – 12:50 hrs.
|
|
|
12:50 a 13:40 HRS. |
Mesa II
“CONTRATACIÓN INTERNACIONAL”
|
|
Moderadora: María Mercedes Albornoz. Miembro de Número
|
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. James A. Graham/Christian López Martínez.
(México) |
“La Ley Aplicable a la Autonomía de la Voluntad en materia contractual”.
|
| 2. Diego Robles Farías.
(México) |
“El desarrollo de la Cláusula ‘Rebus Sic Stantibus’ en el Derecho Comparado y en los instrumentos de Derecho Uniforme que regulan los contratos internacionales.”. |
| 3. Alfonso Ortega Giménez.
(España) |
“Derecho Internacional Privado de la unión Europea y ‘Smart Contracts’ (contratos Inteligentes): Problemas de Competencia Judicial Internacional y de Determinación de la Ley Aplicable”.
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 14:00 – 16:00 hrs.
|
|
|
16:00 – 17:00 HRS. |
“PRESENTACIÓN DEL LIBRO: La Gestación por Sustitución en el Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado”
|
|
Moderadora: Nuria González Martín. Secretaria General de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| Participan: | Adriana Dreyzin de Klor (Argentina) |
| Rosa Elvira Vargas Baca (México) | |
| María Mercedes Albornoz (México) | |
| Nuria González Martín (México) | |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
receso 17:20 – 17:30 hrs.
|
| 17:30 a 18:00 HRS. | Entrega de Constancias a Miembros Eméritos y de Número
|
|
Moderador: Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
JUEVES 24 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022.
| 10:00 a 10:40 HRS. | CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL
Miguel Ángel Reyes Moncayo Consultor Jurídico Adjunto “A” Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores
|
|
Moderadora: Rosa Elvira Vargas Baca. Vicepresidente de la Junta de Gobierno |
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 11:00 – 11:10 hrs.
|
|
|
11:10 a 12:10 HRS. |
MESA III “DERECHO INTERNACIONAL DE LA FAMILIA”
|
|
Moderadora: Martha Álvarez Rendón. Vínculo Institucional con S.R.E. |
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. María Mayela Celis Aguilar.
(Países bajos)
|
“La implementación del Convenio de la Haya de 1980 sobre los Aspectos Civiles de la Sustracción Internacional de Menores en los regímenes nacionales: el caso de América Latina y México”.
|
| 2. Manuel Hernández Rodríguez.
(México) |
“Los retos en México de la Adopción Internacional”.
|
| 3. María Virginia Aguilar.
(México) |
“La Convención sobre los Derecho de las Personas con Discapacidad, un buen documento con ausencia de efectividad, errores y posibilidades”.
|
| 4. Jorge Orozco González.
(México) |
“Consideraciones en torno a la compensación conyugal por causa de muerte. Análisis de la sentencia de amparo directo en revisión 3908/2021”.
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 12:30 – 12:45 hrs.
|
|
| 12:45 – 13:40 HRS
|
MESA IV
“NACIONALIDAD/PROTECCIÓN DEL PATRIMONIO CULTURAL EN EL DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO”
|
|
Moderadora: Yaritza Pérez Pacheco Coordinadora Editorial
|
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. Pedro Carrillo Toral
(México)
|
“La doble Nacionalidad en México: Privilegio o Restricción”
|
| 2. Lerdys Saray Heredia Sánchez
(España)
|
“La inadecuada regulación de los supuestos de plurinacionalidad en Derecho Internacional Privado Español”
|
| 3. Ana Elizabeth Villalta Vizcarra
(El Salvador)
|
“La protección de los Bienes Culturales en el Derecho Internacional Privado” |
| 4. Rosa Elvira Vargas Baca
(México)
|
“La protección de bienes culturales de conformidad con el Convenio de UNIDROIT de 1995”.
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
receso 14:00 – 16:00 hrs.
|
| 16:00 a 17:00 HRS. | MESA V
“Responsabilidad Civil Extracontractual/ Temas Selectos de Derecho Internacional Privado-I”
|
|
Moderadora: Anahí Rodríguez Marcial. Coordinadora de Seminario
|
|
| Ponente
|
Tema |
| 1. Francisco de Jesús Goytortúa Chambón.
(México)
|
“Criterios del Derecho Aplicable en la Responsabilidad Extracontractual” |
| 2. Mario de la Madrid Andrade.
(México) |
“La responsabilidad de la empresa en los Principios de Derecho Europeo sobre la Responsabilidad Civil Extracontractual”
|
| 3. Carlos Gabuardi.
(México) |
“Nuevos desarrollos evolutivos del Derecho Internacional Privado”. |
|
4. Adriana Patricia Guzmán Calderón/ Sara Ximena Pinzón Restrepo. (Colombia) |
“¿Cuáles son los desafíos de la normatividad de la propiedad intelectual frente al surgimiento de los NFTs? Análisis de los NFTs en el Marco de la Propiedad Intelectual en Colombia”. |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 17:20 – 17:30 hrs.
|
|
|
17:30 a 18:00 HRS. |
Entrega de Constancias a Miembros Supernumerarios
|
|
Moderador: Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
VIERNES 25 DE NOVIEMBRE DE 2022.
|
10:00 a 10:30 HRS. |
CONFERENCIA MAGISTRAL Roberto Ruíz Díaz Labrano “Las fuentes del Derecho Internacional Privado en la Actualidad”. (Paraguay)
|
|
Moderadora: Wendolyne Nava gonzález Coordinadora Editorial |
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 10:50 – 11:00 hrs.
|
|
|
11:00 – 12:00HRS. |
Mesa VI “TECNOLOGÍA Y DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO/TEMAS SELECTOS DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO-II” |
|
Moderadora: Martha Karina Tejada Vásquez. Prosecretaria de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| Ponente | Tema |
| 1. Roberto Antonio Falcón Espinosa.
(México) |
“Los datos personales biométricos y el Derecho Internacional Privado”
|
| 2. Nayiber Febles Pozo
(España) |
“Desafío del Derecho Internacional Privado ante las relaciones en el ciberespacio: Relación de continuidad o cambio de paradigma”.
|
| 3. Francisco José Contreras Vaca.
(México) |
“Conflicto de Leyes en materia del Trabajo”.
|
| 4. Wendolyne Nava González.
(México) |
“Justicia Descentralizada: Obstáculos y Consideraciones Jurídicas”
|
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (20 mins).
|
|
|
receso 12:20 – 12:40
|
|
|
12:40 – 13:25 HRS. |
Mesa VII
“TEMAS SELECTOS DE DERECHO INTERNACIONAL PRIVADO-III”
|
|
Moderadora: Mónica María Antonieta Velarde Méndez. Consejera de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| 1. Juan Manuel Saldaña Pérez.
(México) |
“Cooperación Procesal Internacional en Materia Aduanera”.
|
| 2. Máximo Romero Jiménez
(México) |
“Implementación del Anexo 31-A del T-MEC”.
|
| 3. Vladia Ruxandra Mucenic.
(Rumania) |
“Participación de Accionistas Extranjeros en Asambleas Virtuales de Sociedades Mexicanas”. |
|
Preguntas y Respuestas (10 mins).
|
|
|
receso 13:35 – 13:45
|
|
|
13:45 a 14:00 HRS. |
Entrega de Constancias a Miembros Asociados
|
|
Moderador: Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Junta de Gobierno
|
|
| 14:00 HRS. | CLAUSURA.
*Por definir Escuela Libre de Derecho (ELD) Elí Rodríguez Martínez. Presidente de la Academia Mexicana de Derecho Internacional Privado y Comparado (AMEDIP).
|