The HCCH is seeking to retain a Consultant who will conduct a study and draft a further Report on specific aspects relating to the HCCH’s ongoing legislative project on Tourists and Visitors.
Interested? For more information, follow this link to the vacancy announcement.
In Parsons v The Canadian Red Cross Society, 2013 ONSC 3053 (available here), Winkler CJ (of the Court of Appeal, here sitting down in the Superior Court of Justice) has held that a judge of the SCJ can sit as such outside Ontario. No authority, it seems, requires the SCJ to sit only in Ontario.
The decision seems to me, at least on an initial reading, largely based on pragmatism. It seems efficient to so allow and so the court does. But I have some preliminary sense that there are some larger concerns here that are not being fully thought through. The place where a court sits seems awfully fundamental to its existence and authority as a court. In addition, the brushing aside of concerns about the open court principle (see paras 48-50) seems too minimal.
Part of the decision is based on Morguard and the federal nature of Canada (see para 25), so maybe the judge could not so sit outside Canada?
For news coverage of the decision, see this story.
Could this idea get pushed beyond the fairly narrow bounds of this case? Say a case is started in Ontario and the defendant seeks a stay in favour of Alberta because of all the factual connections to that province. Could the plaintiff, if otherwise likely to see the proceedings in Ontario get stayed, ask the court to have one of its judges hear the case in Alberta, sitting as a judge of the Ontario court? That way the plaintiff gets an Ontario judgment and the defendant gets the case heard in Alberta…
The Italian journal Le Nuove Leggi Civili Commentate has published in its latest issue (no. 6/2011) an extensive commentary of the Rome III Regulation (Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010, implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation). The same journal had published, back in 2009, the first article-by-article comment of the Rome I Reg. (see our previous post here).
The commentary has been written, under the editorship of Pietro Franzina (Univ. of Ferrara), by a team of Italian scholars: Giacomo Biagioni (Univ. of Cagliari), Zeno Crespi Reghizzi (Univ. of Milano), Antonio Leandro (Univ. of Bari) and Giulia Rossolillo (Univ. of Pavia). Here’s the comments’ list:
Introductory remarks: P. Franzina, Z. Crespi Reghizzi; Art. 1: G. Rossolillo; Arts. 2-3: P. Franzina; Art. 4: A. Leandro; Arts. 5-7: G. Biagioni; Art. 8: Z. Crespi Reghizzi; Art. 9: G. Rossolillo; Arts. 10-13: A. Leandro; Arts. 14-15: P. Franzina; Art. 16: G. Rossolillo; Art. 17: G. Biagioni; Art. 18: Z. Crespi Reghizzi; Art. 19: G. Biagioni; Art. 20: G. Rossolillo; Art. 21: Z. Crespi Reghizzi.
A detailed table of contents is available here.
The Rome III regulation (see our most recent post here, with links to the previous ones) has been published in the Official Journal of the European Union n. L 343 of 29 December 2010. The official reference is the following: Council Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (OJ n. L 343, p. 10 ff.).
Pursuant to its Art. 21(2), the regulation should apply from 21 June 2012 in the 14 Member States which currently participate in the enhanced cooperation (Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia).
Art. 18 (Transitional provisions) provides that “[the] regulation shall apply only to legal proceedings instituted and to agreements of the kind referred to in Article 5 [choice of the applicable law by the spouses] concluded as from 21 June 2012”. The same article stipulates that “effect shall also be given to an agreement on the choice of the applicable law concluded before 21 June 2012, provided that it complies with Articles 6 and 7” (rules governing material and formal validity of the agreement). As regards proceedings commenced in the court of a participating Member State before 21 June 2012, the regulation will be without prejudice to pacta de lege utenda concluded in accordance with the law of that State (Art. 18(2)).
In order to make national rules concerning formal and procedural requirements of an optio legis fully accessible, Art. 17 (applicable from 21 June 2011) requires the participating Member States to communicate any relevant information in respect thereof to the Commission, which will make them publicly available, in particular through the website of the European Judicial Network in civil and commercial matters.
(Many thanks to Federico Garau – Conflictus Legum blog – for the tip-off)
As a Christmas gift for European PIL scholars, the first enhanced cooperation in the history of the EU has been achieved in the field of conflict of laws (on the origin of the initiative see our previous post here).
The Council, in its meeting of 20 December 2010, adopted the Rome III regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (for previous steps of the procedure, see here and here). As of mid-2012 (18 months after its adoption, pursuant to Art. 21), the Rome III reg. will apply in the 14 Member States which have been authorised to participate in the enhanced cooperation by Council decision no. 2010/405/EU: Belgium, Bulgaria, Germany, Spain, France, Italy, Latvia, Luxembourg, Hungary, Malta, Austria, Portugal, Romania and Slovenia. Further Member States which wish to participate may do so in accordance with the second or third subparagraph of Article 331(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.
The text of the new regulation is available in Council doc. no. 17523/10 of 17 December 2010; after the signing of the President of the Council, it will be soon published in the Official Journal. The regulation is accompanied by a Declaration of the Council regarding the insertion of a provision on forum necessitatis in reg. no. 2201/2003, worded as follows:
The Council invites the Commission to submit at its earliest convenience to the Council and to the European Parliament a proposal for the amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003 with the aim of providing a forum in those cases where the courts that have jurisdiction are all situated in Member States whose law either does not provide for divorce or does not deem the marriage in question valid for the purposes of divorce proceedings (forum necessitatis).
The European Parliament, merely consulted under the special legislative procedure provided by Art. 81(3) TFEU for measures concerning family law, gave its opinion on 15 December 2010 (informal contacts with the Council have ensured that the EP views were taken into account in the final text). In the preamble of the legislative resolution, the EP called “on the Commission to submit a proposal for amendment of Regulation (EC) No 2201/2003, limited to the addition of a clause on forum necessitatis, as a matter of great urgency before the promised general review of that Regulation”.
Many thanks to Federico Garau (Conflictus Legum blog) and to Marina Castellaneta for the tip-off.
The JHA Council, in its meeting held on 3 December 2010 in Brussels, agreed on the text (doc. n. 17045/10) of the Rome III regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (see our previous post here).
As stated in the Council’s press release (doc. n. 17151/10),
The new rules will apply to all participating member states as of mid-2012. Other EU member states which are not yet ready but wish to join this pioneer group at a later stage will be able to do so. The agreement also constitutes the implementation of the first enhanced cooperation in the history of the EU.
For its adoption two more procedural steps are necessary: The European Parliament is expected to adopt an opinion on the file in its December plenary session. The Council will then adopt the new rules without discussion, most likely at the Environment Council on 20 December 2010.
Upon the adoption, the regulation will be accompanied by declarations by the Council (on forum necessitatis), and by the Commission, Malta and Finland on a new controversial art. 7a (“Differences in national law”): see Annexes I, II, III and IV to doc. n. 17046/10.
The position of the European Parliament, under examination in the JURI Committee, can be found in the Draft report prepared by rapporteur Tadeusz Zwiefka (see, in particular, the Explanatory Statement) and additional amendments.
On Monday, 12 July 2010, the Council adopted a decision authorising 14 Member States (Spain, Italy, Hungary, Luxembourg, Austria, Romania, Slovenia, Bulgaria, France, Germany, Belgium, Latvia, Malta and Portugal) to participate in the first enhanced cooperation in the history of the European Union, on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation (see the provisional version of the Council’s press release, doc. no. 12077/10, at p. 15).
As we reported in our previous posts, the initiative for an enhanced cooperation in the field originated in 2008, when the Council noted that there were insurmountable difficulties in reaching the required unanimity in order to adopt the Commission’s proposal amending the Brussels IIa Regulation and introducing rules concerning applicable law in matrimonial matters (Rome III reg.).
The first formal steps of the procedure are summarised as follows in Council document no. 10288/10 of 1 June 2010:
[…] Greece, Spain, Italy, Hungary, Luxembourg, Austria, Romania and Slovenia addressed a request to the Commission by letters dated 28 July 2008 indicating that they wished to establish enhanced cooperation between them in the area of applicable law in matrimonial matters and that they expected the Commission to submit a proposal to the Council to that end. Bulgaria addressed an identical request to the Commission by a letter dated 12 August 2008 and France by a letter dated 12 January 2009. On 3 March 2010, Greece withdrew its request. Germany, Belgium, Latvia and Malta joined the request by letters dated respectively 15 April 2010, 22 April 2010, 17 May 2010 and 31 May 2010. In total, thirteen Member States have thus requested enhanced cooperation.
On 31 March 2010 the Commission presented to the Council:
(a) a proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation [COM(2010)104 fin./2 of 30 March 2010]; and
(b) a proposal for a Council Regulation (EU) implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation [COM(2010)105 fin./2 of 30 March 2010: the proposed “Rome III” reg.].
The Commission assessed the legal conditions for enhanced cooperation in the explanatory memorandum to the proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.
On 1 June 2010 the Legal Affairs (JURI) Committee of the European Parliament voted unanimously for the proposal for a Council Decision authorising enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation.
The JHA Council, on 3-4 June 2010, reached a political agreement on the matter, and transmitted the draft decision to the Parliament, in order to obtain its consent to the enhanced cooperation, pursuant to Art. 329(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (see JHA Council’s press release, doc. no. 10630/10).
On 16 June 2010 the plenary session of the European Parliament approved a legislative resolution giving its consent to the draft decision, that was finally adopted by the Council on 12 July 2010.
It is interesting to note that the Parliament in its resolution has called on the Council to adopt a decision pursuant to Article 333(2) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union stipulating that, when it comes to the proposal for a Council Regulation implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of the law applicable to divorce and legal separation, it will act under the ordinary legislative procedure (formerly known as codecision), and not under the special legislative procedure provided for in Article 81(3) of the TFEU, under which EP is merely consulted.
As regards the text of the Rome III reg., it is currently under discussion in the Council, on the basis of the Commission’s March proposal. The latest available text is contained in Council document no. 10153/10 of 1 June 2010: at their latest meeting on 4 June 2010, Justice ministers agreed on a general approach on key elements (see Council Secretariat’s factsheet of 4 June 2010).