Views
Nothing Found
Sorry, no posts matched your criteria
News
EUFams II – International Exchange Seminar at the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law
On 24-25 October 2019, the Max Planck Institute Luxembourg for Procedural Law will host an International Exchange Seminar in the framework of the Project “EUFams II – Facilitating Cross-Border Family Life: Towards a Common European Understanding”. Funded by the European Commission, the Project aims to develop a common expertise and understanding of the EU instruments in family law: notably, it identifies practical problems and puts forth solutions to secure a uniform, coherent and consistent application of such instruments.
The Project tackles, in particular, the Regulations on matrimonial matters and matters of parental responsibility, including child abduction ((EC) No 2001/2003 to be repealed by (EU) 2019/1111), maintenance obligations ((EC) No 4/2009), successions ((EU) No 650/2012), the two Regulations implementing enhanced cooperation in matters of matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships ((EU) 2016/1103 and 1104). It also tackles the Regulation adopted to simplify the requirements for cross-border use and acceptance of certain public documents in the European Union ((EU) 2016/1191) and the relevant Hague instruments. Furthermore, to ensure a comprehensive approach the Project engages with the legal challenges arising from the current refugee crisis and the potential impacts of Brexit on family law.
Gathering renowned academics from various institutions, judges, notaries, lawyers, and representatives of international organizations and family law associations, the International Exchange Seminar will address and explore possible solutions to controversial or problematic issues that were identified in the course of the National Exchange Seminars hosted, in the framework of the Project, by the Project Partners, and namely the Universities of Heidelberg (coord.), Lund, Milan, Osijek, Valencia and Verona.
The Program of the International Exchange Seminar is available here.
The Project’s research outputs and case law database are accessible here and here (both in progress).
For more information on the Project, see here and here.
This project was funded by the European Union’s Justice Programme (2014-2020). The content of this study represents the views of the authors only and is their sole responsibility. The European Commission does not accept any responsibility for use that may be made of the information it contains.
3rd IBA Litigation Committee Conference on Private International Law
On 24 and 25 October, the 3rd IBA Litigation Committee Conference on Private International Law will take place in Palazzo Turati, Milan, Italy. It will deal with Brexit, International Commercial Courts and Sanctions. More information are available on the IBA conference website.
The programme reads as follows:
Welcome remarks
- Angelo Anglani NCTM, Rome; Co-Chair, IBA Litigation Committee
- Vinicio Nardo Chairman, Consiglio dell’Ordine degli Avvocati di Milano, Milan
Keynote address
International dispute resolution in turbulent times – is there a role for private international law?
Professor Fausto Pocar Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan
Session One
Brexit – the impact on jurisdiction and private international law
With just one week until the deadline, we will check the status of the most controversial event in the history of the European Union. The session will focus on the impact of Brexit on jurisdiction and private international law and look at the possible effects on solutions and perspectives in international commercial disputes.
Session Chair
Carlo Portatadino Weigmann, Milan; Secretary, IBA Litigation Committee
Speakers
- Professor Stefania Bariatti Università degli Studi di Milano, Milan
- Alexander Layton QC Twenty Essex, London
Session Two
The mushrooming of International Commercial Courts throughout Europe – reasons and perspectives
In 2016, on the occasion of the 2nd IBA Litigation Committee Conference on Private International Law, we explored the new phenomenon of the International Commercial Courts and discussed whether the 2005 Hague Convention on Choice of Court Agreements could enhance their role in international commercial dispute resolution. Since that time, and also in light of Brexit we have been assessing the mushrooming of International Commercial Courts throughout Europe. This session will examine the experiences of several jurisdictions and focus on the future perspective on the phenomenon in Europe.
Session Chair
Jacques Bouyssou Alerion, Paris; Treasurer, IBA Litigation Committee
Speakers
- Martin Bernet Bernet Arbitration / Dispute Management, Zurich
- Hakim Boularbah Loyens & Loeff, Brussels
- Jean Messinesi Honorary President, Tribunal de Commerce de Paris, Paris
- Duco Oranje President, NCC Court of Appeal, Amsterdam
- Professor Giesela Rühl Friedrich-Schiller-Universität Jena, Jena
- Mathias Wittinghofer Herbert Smith Freehills, Frankfurt
Session Three
Sanctions – politics, procedures and private international law
This session will consider the increasing impact of sanctions on politics and economics. The panellists will present the workings of the European and US sanctions systems and illustrate the resulting consequences on international trade and cross-border disputes. The session will also focus on how clients approach and deal with the matter.
Session Chair
Christopher Tahbaz Debevoise & Plimpton, New York
Speakers
- Shannon Lazzarini Group Deputy General Counsel & Head of Group Litigation, Unicredit, Milan
- Richard Newcomb DLA Piper, Washington DC
- Michael O’Kane Peters & Peters, London
- Marco Piredda Senior Vice-President, International Affairs, ENI, Rome
- Professor Hans van Houtte KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium
Closing remarks
Tom Price Gowling WLG, Birmingham; Co-Chair, IBA Litigation Committee
German Federal Supreme Court awards damages for violation of a choice of court agreement
With judgment of 17 October 2019 (III ZR 42/19) the German Federal Supreme Court held that a contracting party may be entitled to compensation for the costs incurred through the violation of a choice of court agreement. The basic facts and the main reasoning of the Court are summarized below. The full press release (in German) is available here.
Facts of the case:
The parties involved in the litigation were telecommunications companies. The defendant was domiciled in Bonn (Germany) and the plaintiff was domiciled in Washington, D.C. (United States). They were linked through an “Internet Peering Agreement” according to which they were mutually required to receive the data traffic of the other party at so-called peering points, to transport it on their network to the customers connected via the network and to provide the necessary transmission capacity at the peering points within their networks. The contract provided for application of German law and jurisdiction in Bonn (Germany).
In 2016, after the plaintiff’s efforts to achieve the (free) increase in transmission capacity had failed, it filed a lawsuit in a District Court in the United States. requesting the creation of additional capacity. The District Court dismissed the claim for lack of jurisdiction pointing to the choice of forum clause in the contract. The plaintiff, therefore, filed a lawsuit with the Bonn Regional Court whereas the defendant filed a counterclaim demanding reimbursement of the costs it incurred through the proceedings in the United States.
The Bonn Regional Court dismissed the main lawsuit, but granted the counterclaim which, however, was rejected upon appeal of the plaintiff by the Court of Appeal. The Federal Supreme Court with its judgement of 17 October 2019 reversed the Court of Appeal judgment and held that the defendant is, in fact, entitled to reimbursement of its costs.
Legal reasoning:
The Federal Supreme Court argues that the parties’ agreement, notably the choice of court and the choice of law clause, is to be interpreted as meaning that the parties are required to bring actions only in Bonn and failing that – at least to the extent that the court seized, such as the District Court, recognizes the lack of jurisdiction – to reimburse the other party for the costs incurred thereby. The parties, through the choice of court and choice of law clause, expressed their interest in making legal disputes foreseeable both from a substantive and a procedural point of view. It was the parties’ aim to create legal certainty and to make the (economic) risk associated with litigation calculable. By specifying a place of jurisdiction, they aimed to prevent forum shopping and to avoid costly disputes about jurisdiction. This goal the Federal Supreme Court argues, can only be achieved if the aggrieved party is entitled to reimbursement of its costs.