English High Court Rules on Art. 4 Rome II Regulation
The English High Court has recently rendered an insightful and thought provoking decision on the application of Art. 4 II and III of the Rome II Regulation
If you are not happy with the results below please do another search
The English High Court has recently rendered an insightful and thought provoking decision on the application of Art. 4 II and III of the Rome II Regulation
The French supreme court for private and criminal matters (Cour de cassation) ruled on the respective scopes of the 1971 Hague Convention on the law applicable to traffic accidents and the Rome II Regulation in a
The first Greek
On 17 November 2011, the Court of Justice of the European Union delivered its
On May 25, 2011, the Committee of Legal Affairs (Rapporteur: Diane Wallis) of the European Parliament has issued a
Two recent decisions of the English High Court consider the temporal effect of the
Andrew Dickinson’s monograph on The Rome II Regulation – The Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations was published in December 2008, and subsequent contributions from courts and academics have been seen throughout 2009 and 2010. To ensure that his work stays up-to-date and comprehensive, Dickinson has published an Updating Supplement to accompany the monograph. From the […]
Paolo Bertoli (University of Insubria) has published two interesting articles (in English) on the role of party autonomy in the Rome II regulation. Here are the references:
Choice of Law by the Parties in the Rome II Regulation, in Rivista di diritto internazionale, 2009, pp. 697-716.
Party Autonomy and Choice-Of-Law Methods in the “Rome II” Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, in Il Diritto dell’Unione europea, 2009, pp. 229-264.
An abstract has been kindly provided by the author:
The articles discuss, also in comparison with American private international law theories and methods, the innovative provisions relating to party autonomy set forth in the EC “Rome II” regulation on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations, the choice-of-law methods that such provisions follow, and their role and significance in the framework of the European “federalized” private international law system. In particular, the articles demonstrate that a distinction can, and should, be made between cases in which party autonomy operates in the context, and demonstrates the existence in Rome II, of: (i) a traditional (or, in American terminology, “jurisdiction-selecting”) choice-of-law method, (ii) a “content-oriented” choice-of-law method, and (iii) a European lex fori approach.
With reference to the development of EC private international law, see also the author’s thorough analysis of the role of the European Court of Justice, in his volume “Corte di giustizia, integrazione comunitaria e diritto internazionale privato e processuale” (Giuffrè, 2005) and “The Court of Justice, European Integration and Private International Law” (in Yearbook of Private International law, vol. VIII-2006, pp. 375-412: the article can be browsed through the Libreka! website).
Scholarly writings on the new
Starting from today, 11 January 2009,