Views
The EU Sustainability Directive and Jurisdiction
The Draft for a Corporate Sustainable Due Diligence Directive currently contains no rules on jurisdiction. This creates inconsistencies between the scope of application of the Draft Directive and existing jurisdictional law, both on the EU level and on the domestic level, and can lead to an enforcement gap: EU companies may be able to escape the existing EU jurisdiction; non-EU companies may even not be subject to such jurisdiction. Effectivity requires closing that gap, and we propose ways in which this could be achieved.
(authored by Ralf Michaels and Antonia. Sommerfeld and crossposted at https://eapil.org/)
- The Proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence
The process towards an EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive is gaining momentum. The EU Commission published a long awaited Proposal for a Directive on Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence (CSDDD), COM(2022) 71 final, on 23 February 2022; the EU Council adopted its negotiation position on 1 December 2022; and now, the EU Parliament has suggested amendments to this Draft Directive on 1 June 2023. The EU Parliament has thereby backed the compromise textreached by its legal affairs committee on 25 April 2023. This sets off the trilogue between representatives of the Parliament, the Council and the Commission.
No Sunset of Retained EU Conflict of Laws in the UK, but Increased Risk of Sunburn
By Dr Johannes Ungerer, University of Oxford
The sunset of retained EU law in the UK has begun: the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 received Royal Assent at the end of June. The Act will revoke many EU laws that have so far been retained in the UK by the end of 2023.
The good news for the conflict of laws is that the retained Rome I and II Regulations are not included in the long list of EU legal instruments which are affected by the mass-revocation. Both Regulations have been retained in the UK post-Brexit by section 3 of the European Union (Withdrawal) Act 2018 and were modified by the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations and Non-Contractual Obligations (Amendment etc.) (EU Exit) Regulations 2019 (as amended in 2020). The retained (modified) Rome I and II Regulations will thus be part of domestic law beyond the end of 2023. Yet this retained EU law must not be called by name anymore: it will be called “assimilated law” according to section 5 of the Retained EU Law (Revocation and Reform) Act 2023 (although the title of this enactment, like others, will strangely continue to contain the phrase “Retained EU Law” and will not be changed to “Assimilated Law”, see section 5(5)).
The CJEU on Procedural Rules in Child Abduction Cases: private international law and children’s rights law
Comment on CJEU case Rzecznik Praw Dziecka e.a., C-638/22 PPU, 16 February 2023)
Written by Tine Van Hof, post-doc researcher in Private International Law and Children’s Rights Law at the University of Antwerp, previously published on EU live
The Court of Justice of the EU has been criticised after some previous cases concerning international child abduction such as Povse and Aguirre Zarraga for prioritising the effectiveness of the EU private international law framework (i.e. the Brussels IIa Regulation, since replaced by Brussels IIb, and the principle of mutual trust) and using the children’s rights law framework (i.e. Article 24 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights and the principle of the child’s best interests) in a functional manner (see e.g. Silvia Bartolini and Ruth Lamont). In Rzecznik Praw Dziecka the Court takes both frameworks into account but does not prioritise one or the other, since the frameworks concur.
News
Call for Papers: Unveiling Arbitration’s (New) Identity in a Changing World
We are pleased to announce an online symposium on Unveiling Arbitration’s (New) Identity in a Changing World, scheduled for May 9, 2025. This symposium aims to explore the evolving identity of arbitration in the face of rapid technological and societal shifts.
September 2024 Update: List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments
September 2024 Update: List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments
Written by Dr. Meng Yu and Dr. Guodong Du, co-founders of China Justice Observer*
On 22 September 2024, China Justice Observer released the 2024 version of the List of China’s Cases on Recognition of Foreign Judgments.[1] To date, we have collected 109 cases involving China and 26 foreign States and regions. (Note: Foreign divorce judgments are excluded in the Case List.)
Giustizia consensuale No 1/2024: Abstracts
The first issue of 2024 of Giustizia consensuale (published by Editoriale Scientifica) has just been released, and it features:
Paolo Comoglio (Associate Professor at the University of Genoa), Giustizia forzata. Lo strano caso dell’offer to settle in Cassazione nel nuovo art. 380 bis c.p.c. (Forced Justice. The Strange Case of the Offer to Settle before the Court of Cassation pursuant to the New Article 380-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure; in Italian).
This article examines the accelerated definition procedure for Cassation appeals pursuant to Article 380-bis of the Italian Code of Civil Procedure, as amended by the ‘Cartabia reform’. Beginning with an analysis of case law, the article critically explores the main questions of unconstitutionality surrounding Article 380-bis and the uncertainties that this peculiar procedural device poses.
Paola Licci (Researcher at the Università di Roma Tor Vergata), La centralità della giustizia consensuale nelle controversie di lavoro (The Centrality of Consensual Justice in Labor Disputes; in Italian)
This article examines the evolution of consensual justice in labor matters, beginning with the first form of conciliation provided by the law on probiviral tribunal and ending with the assisted negotiation introduced in labor disputes by the ‘Cartabia reform’. The analysis of these institutions reveals that consensual justice plays a fundamental role in resolving labor disputes, both due to the nature of the litigation and the inability of the justice system to offer effective (and differentiated) protection swiftly.