Tag Archive for: European Private International Law

Book: Feraci, “L’ordine pubblico nel diritto dell’Unione europea”

/in /by

Ornella Feraci (Univ. of Siena) has recently published “L’ordine pubblico nel diritto dell’Unione europea” (The public policy in EU Law) (Giuffrè, 2012). An abstract has been kindly provided by the author (the complete table of contents is available on the publisher’s website):

The work aims to examine one of the classic topic of private international law in the perspective of the European Union law under the two aspects of applicable law and recognition and enforcement of foreign decisions. Through the analysis of the case-law of the Court of Justice of the European Union and of the most recent instruments of private international law of the Union, it comes to identify a new concept of “public policy of the European Union”, which intends to protect the fundamental principles of European Union law; the book investigates the characteristics of the exception, trying to identify the functions, the relations with national public policy of the Member States and, as far as possible, the content.

Title: “L’ordine pubblico nel diritto dell’Unione europea“, by Ornella Feraci, Giuffrè (series: Collana di Studi del Dipartimento di Diritto pubblico dell’Università di Siena), 2012, XVI – 463 pages.

ISBN: 9788814173394. Price: EUR 50. Available at Giuffrè.

European Parliament Adopts Succession Proposal at First Reading

/in /by

The European Parliament adopted today a legislative resolution at first reading on the regulation on successions (see the Declaration by the Danish Presidency of the Council and the background note).

Amendments to the initial Commission’s Proposal were drafted and discussed in the EP’s JURI Committee (rapporteur: Kurt Lechner), that adopted a report on the regulation in its meeting of 1st March 2012, reflecting the agreement reached by the Parliament and the Council. Latest available document in the Council’s register is doc. n. 6925/12 of 24 February 2012 (consolidated text confirmed by Coreper).

The text adopted by the EP will be available soon on this page (UPDATE: provisional edition). According to current information, the final vote on the Regulation by the Council should be scheduled before the end of the Danish Presidency (30 June 2012).

Swiss Institute of Comparative Law: 24e Journée de DIP on International Family Law

/in /by

On Friday, 16th March 2012, the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (ISDC) will host the 24th Journée de droit international privé, organised in collaboration with the University of Lausanne (Center of Comparative Law, European Law and International Law – CDCEI). The conference will analyse the latest developments in international family law, under a Swiss and an EU perspective : “Derniers développements suisses et européens en droit international privé de la famille”. Here’s the programme:

Mot de bienvenue par les organisateurs (09h00 – 09h10):

  • Christina Schmid (Directrice à l’Institut suisse de droit comparé);
  • Andrea Bonomi (Directeur CDCEI de l’Université de Lausanne).

Première Session (09h10 – 11h00)
Le divorce et ses conséquences:

  • La révision du droit international privé du divorce et de la  prévoyance professionnelle, Gian Paolo Romano (Professeur, Université de Genève);
  • Le droit applicable en matière de divorce selon le règlement  européen Rome III, Cristina Gonzalez Beilfuss (Professeure, Université de Barcelone);
  • Le droit applicable aux conséquences patrimoniales du divorce  dans les Etats de l’Union européenne, Andrea Bonomi (Professeur, Université de Lausanne)
  • Discussion et questions.

11h00 – 11h30 Café offert par l’Association des Alumni et Amis de l’ISDC (AiSDC)

Deuxième Session (11h30 – 13h00)
Le mariage et les actes d’état civil:

  • IPR Aspekte der Zwangsheiraten, Lukas Bopp (Dr. iur., Avocat à Bâle);
  • Le droit du nom entre réformes législatives et évolution du contexte européen, Michel Montini (Avocat à Neuchâtel, Maître de conférence à l’Université de Fribourg);
  • Discussion et questions.

13h00 – 14h30 Déjeuner

Troisième Session (14h30 – 16h30)
La protection des mineurs:

  • Nouvelles de La Haye : la Sixième réunion de la Commission  spéciale sur les Conventions de 1980 et 1996, Joëlle Küng (Collaboratrice juridique, Conférence de La Haye  de droit international privé);
  • La jurisprudence relative au règlement européen  Bruxelles II bis, Bea Verschraegen (Professeure, Université de Vienne);
  • La réforme du règlement européen Bruxelles II bis, Daria Solenik (Collaboratrice scientifique à l’ISDC);
  • Discussion et questions.

The conference will be held in French and German (no translation is provided). For further information (including fees) see the conference’s programme and the registration form.

(Many thanks to Prof. Andrea Bonomi)

Fallon – Lagarde – Poillot Peruzzetto (Eds.), Quelle architecture pour un code européen de droit international privé?

/in /by

On 17 and 18 March 2011 the University of Toulouse (IRDEIC) hosted a colloquium on the codification of European PIL (“Quelle architecture pour un code européen de droit international privé?“), follow-up to the conference organised in 2008 on “La matière civile et commerciale, socle d’un code européen de droit international privé?” (see the related volume). On the 2011 colloquium, see the report by Jurgen Basedow published in RabelsZ, 2011/3, p. 671 ff., and the one by Pedro de Miguel Asensio on his blog.

In his closing remarks, Paul Lagarde offered as a starting point for discussion a preliminary draft of 24 articles dealing with the general provisions of a future European PIL code (“Embryon de Règlement portant Code europeén de droit international privé”): the draft is published in RabelsZ, 2011/3, p. 673 ff.

The papers presented at the 2011 colloquium have now been published by Peter Lang, under the editorship of Marc Fallon, Paul Lagarde and Sylvaine Poillot Peruzzetto: “Quelle architecture pour un code européen de droit international privé?“.

Here’s the table of contents (.pdf):

Première Partie. La forme et l’instrument de la codification.

  • Aude Mac Eleavy Fiorini : Qu’y a-t-il en un nom ? Un vrai code pour le droit international privé européen;

Deuxième Partie. Les fondements de la codification.

  • Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto : La priorité de l’Espace de Liberté, de Sécurité et de Justice et l’élaboration d’un code européen de droit international privé;
  • Johan Meeusen : La priorité de l’Espace de Liberté, de Sécurité et de Justice et l’élaboration d’un code européen de droit international privé. Réponse à la contribution du professeur Sylvaine Poillot-Peruzzetto;
  • Miguel Gardeñes Santiago : Les exigences du marché intérieur dans la construction d’un code européen de droit international privé, en particulier la place de la confiance et de la reconnaissance mutuelle;
  • Catherine Kessedjian : Un code européen au regard des objectifs du droit international privé;

Troisième Partie. Le domaine de la codification.

  • Laurence Idot : Introduction;
  • Marc Fallon : Le domaine spatial d’un code européen de droit international privé. Émergence et modalités de règles de caractère universel;
  • Pedro A. de Miguel Asensio/Jean-Sylvestre Bergé: The Place of International Agreements and European Law in a European Code of Private International Law;
  • Horatia Muir Watt : La nécessité de la division tripartite. Conflit de lois, de juridiction, règles de reconnaissance et d’exécution ?;
  • Isabelle Rueda : La place de la matière administrative et des immunités au sein d’un code européen de droit international privé;
  • Blanca Vilà/Michel Attal : La place de la procédure et de la coopération entre juges et acteurs nationaux. Le périmètre de la codification;

Quatrième Partie. La structure et la teneur d’une codification.

  • Michael Bogdan: Some Nordic Reflections on the Desirability of an EU Code of Private International Law;
  • Sabine Corneloup/Cyril Nourissat : Quelle structure pour un code européen de droit international privé ?;
  • Marie-Laure Niboyet : Les règles de procédure : l’acquis et les propositions. Les interactions entre les règles nationales de procédure et les « règles judiciaires européennes »;
  • Michael Wilderspin : Règles de compétence et de reconnaissance et d’exécution. L’acquis et les propositions;
  • Anne Marmisse-d’Abbadie d’Arrast/Marc-Philippe Weller : Définitions autonomes et rattachements. Propos introductifs;
  • Anne Marmisse-d’Abbadie d’Arrast : Qualification et concepts autonomes dans l’élaboration d’un code européen de droit international privé;
  • Marc-Philippe Weller : Les rattachements dans les conflits des lois;

Cinquième Partie. Les éléments d’une partie générale.

  • Stefania Bariatti/Étienne Pataut : Codification et théorie générale du droit international privé;

En guise de synthèse

  • Paul Lagarde : En guise de synthèse;

Annexe

  • Eugénie Fabriès-Lecea : Quelle codification pour le droit international privé européen des procédures d’insolvabilité ?

– – – –

Title: Quelle architecture pour un code européen de droit international privé?, edited by M. Fallon, P. Lagarde and S. Poillot Peruzzetto, Peter Lang (Series: Euroclio – Volume 62), Bruxelles – Bern – Berlin – Frankfurt am Main – New York – Oxford – Wien, 2011, 388 pages.

ISBN 978-90-5201-823-2 br. Price: EUR 38.

Franzina (Ed.), Commentary on Rome III Regulation

/in /by

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.

Clearer Patrimonial Regimes for International Couples: Joint Conference of the European Commission and CNUE

/in /by

On Monday 17 October 2011 the Council of the Notariats of the European Union (CNUE) is organising, jointly with the EU Commission, a conference in Brussels on the proposals for two regulations on property rights of “international” married couples and registered partnerships: “Clearer Patrimonial Regimes for International Couples”. A dedicated section of the CNUE website has been set up for the event, for further information and registration (there are still some places left to attend the conference). Here’s the programme (interpretation will be available in English, French, German, Italian, Polish, Romanian and Spanish):

9.30 – 9.40 Opening: Rudolf Kaindl, CNUE President

9.40 – 10.20 Keynote speeches:

  • Viviane Reding, Vice-President of the European Commission
  • Frank Molitor, President of the Luxembourg Chamber of Notaries

10.20 – 10.40 Proposals for Regulations on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes and regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships: Salla Saastamoinen, Head of Unit, DG Justice, European Commission

11.00 – 12.40 Panel discussion: Session 1 – The applicable law

Moderator: Prof. Katharina Boele-Woelki, University of Utrecht

Speakers:

  • Prof. Paul Lagarde, University of Paris I “Panthéon Sorbonne”
  • Prof. Brigitta Lurger, University of Graz
  • Prof. Barbara Reinhartz, University of Amsterdam
  • Franco Salerno Cardillo, Civil Law Notary in Palermo
  • Alexandra Thein, Member of the European Parliament
  • Richard Frimston, STEP, Solicitor and Notary Public in London

14.00 – 15-15 Panel discussion: Session 2 – The competent court

Moderator: Sjef van Erp, Maastricht University, Deputy-Justice, Court of Appeal, ‘s-Hertogenbosch

Speakers:

  • Ulf Bergquist, Lawyer in Stockholm
  • Prof. Patrick Wautelet, University of Liège
  • Katarzyna Lis, Judge, Polish Ministry of Justice

15.15 – 16.30 Panel discussion: Session 3 – Recognition and enforcement in cross-border cases

Moderator: Pedro Carrión García de Parada, Chair of the CNUE’s Family Law Working Group

Speakers:

  • Matthias Neumayr, Judge at the Austrian Supreme Court
  • Prof. Philippe De Page, Université Libre de Bruxelles
  • Prof. Dieter Martiny, European University Viadrina
  • Edmond Jacoby, Civil Law Notary in Forbach

16.30 – 17.00 Information session – More information and services for European citizens

  • The patrimonial property regimes website project, Harald Steinwendter, University of Graz
  • The European Directory of Notaries, Thomas Diehn, Federal Council of the German Notariat

17.00 – 17.30 Closing speech: Paraskevi Michou, Director, DG Justice, European Commission.

 

Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, Issue 2/2011

/in /by

The second issue for 2011 of the Cuadernos de Derecho Transnacional, the Spanish journal published twice a year by the Área de Derecho Internacional Privado of Univ. Carlos III of Madrid under the editorship of Alfonso Luis Calvo-Caravaca (Univ. Carlos III) and Javier Carrascosa-González (Univ. of Murcia), has been recently published. It contains seventeen articles, shorter articles and casenotes, encompassing a wide range of topics in conflict of laws, conflict of jurisdictions and uniform law, all freely available for download. The journal’s website provides a very useful search function, by which contents can be browsed by issue of publication, author, title, keywords, abstract and fulltext.

Here’s the table of contents of issue 2/2011 (each contribution is accompanied by an abstract in English):

Estudios

  • José Mª Alcántara, Frazer Hunt, Svante O. Johansson, Barry Oland, Kay Pysden, Milos Pohunek, Jan Ramberg, Douglas G. Schmitt, William Tetley, C.M.Q.C, Julio Vidal, A Blue Print for a Worldwide Multimodal Regime;
  • Nuno Andrade Pisarra, Breves considerações sobre a lei aplicável ao contrato de seguro;
  • María José Cervell Hortal, Pacientes en la Unión Europea: libertad restringida y vigilada;
  • Sara Lidia Feldstein de Cárdenas, Luciane Klein Vieira, La noción de consumidor en el Mercosur;
  • Pietro Franzina, The law applicable to divorce and legal separation under Regulation (EU) no. 1259/2010 of 20 December 2010;
  • Federico F. Garau Sobrino, Las fuentes españolas en materia de obligaciones alimenticias. ¿Hacia un Derecho Internacional Privado extravagante?;
  • Cesáreo Gutiérrez Espada, La adhesión española (2011) a la Convención de las Naciones Unidas sobre las inmunidades jurisdiccionales de los Estados y de sus bienes (2005);
  • Francesco Seatzu, La proposta per la riforma del Regolamento «Bruxelles I» e i provvedimenti provvisori;
  • Sara Tonolo, L’Italia e il resto del mondo nel pensiero di Pasquale Stanislao Mancini.

Varia

  • Ana-Paloma Abarca Junco, Marina Vargas-Gómez Urrutia, Vecindad civil de la mujer casada: nuevas reflexiones en torno a la inconstitucionalidad sobrevenida del art. 14.4 C.c. y la retroactividad de la Constitución española en relación a los modos de adquisición de su vecindad civil;
  • Elisa Baroncini, La politica cinese sulle esportazioni dinanzi al sistema di risoluzione delle controversie dell’OMC: il report del Panel nel caso China – Raw Materials;
  • Pilar Juárez Pérez, La inevitable extensión de la ciudadanía de la Unión: a propósito de la STJUE de 8 de marzo de 2011 (asunto Ruiz Zambrano);
  • Carlos Llorente Gómez de Segura, “Forum non conveniens” revisited: el caso Spanair;
  • Pilar Maestre Casas, El pasajero aéreo desprotegido: obstáculos a la tutela judicial en litigios transfronterizos por incumplimientos de las compañías aéreas (A propósito de la STJUE de 9 julio 2009, Rehder, As. C-204/08);
  • María Dolores Ortiz Vidal, Ilonka Fürstin von Sayn-Wittgenstein: una princesa en el Derecho internacional privado;
  • Esther Portela Vázquez, La Convención de la UNESCO sobre la Protección del Patrimonio Subacuático. Principios Generales;
  • Alessandra Zanobetti, Employment contracts and the Rome Convention: the Koelzsch ruling of the European Court of Justice.

(Many thanks to Federico Garau, Conflictus Legum blog, for the tip-off)

European Parliament’s Workshop on the Brussels I Proposal (rescheduled)

/in /by

The workshop organized by the EP JURI Committee on the review of the Brussels I regulation, originally scheduled on 20 September 2011 (see our previous posts here and here) is taking place in Brussels this morning (h 10.00 – 12.00).

The live video streaming is broadcasted on this page. The link to the recorded session can be found here.

European Parliament’s Workshop on the Brussels I Proposal (20 September 2011) – Study on the Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception in EU PIL

/1 Comment/in /by

On Tuesday, 20 September 2011, the EP Committee on Legal Affairs (JURI) will host in Brussels a workshop on the review of the Brussels I regulation. The round table, chaired by Tadeusz Zwiefka (EP rapporteur on the Brussels I proposal), will be followed by the presentation of the study “Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law”, prepared by Prof. Burkhard Hess and Prof. Thomas Pfeiffer (Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg) on behalf of the Commission. Here’s the programme:

[UPDATE: the live video streaming of the workshop will be broadcasted on this page. The recorded session will be later available in the EP’s Multimedia Library]

9:00 – 9:10 Welcome and opening remarks by Tadeusz Zwiefka, Rapporteur.

9:10 – 10:20 Analysis of the main elements of reform of Brussels I Regulation – Round Table:

  • Professor Burkhard Hess, Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität
  • Heidelberg;
  • Professor Marie-Laure Niboyet, Université Paris X-Nanterre;
  • Professor Horatia Muir-Watt, Sciences-Po Law School, Paris;
  • Professor Ilaria Pretelli, Università degli Studi di Urbino “Carlo Bo”;
  • Alexander Layton QC of the Bar of England and Wales;
  • Professor Andrew Dickinson, University of Sydney, solicitor advocate (England and Wales), consultant to Clifford Chance LLP;
  • Florian Horn, partner and attorney at law, Brauneis Klauser Prändl law firm.

10:20 – 11:00 Questions and answers.

11:00 – 11:10 Presentation of the Study on the “Interpretation of the Public Policy Exception as referred to in EU Instruments of Private International and Procedural Law” by Professor Burkhard Hess and Professor Thomas Pfeiffer, Institut für ausländisches und internationales Privat- und Wirtschaftsrecht der Ruprecht-Karls-Universität Heidelberg.

11:10 – 11:20 Questions and answers.

11:20 – 11:30 Closing remarks by the Rapporteur.

(Many thanks to Prof. Koji Takahashi for providing the links to the video sessions)

Commission’s Proposals On Matrimonial Property Regimes and Property Consequences of Registered Partnerships

/in /by

As announced in the past months, on 16 March 2011 the Commission presented the proposals for two regulations on property rights of “international” married couples and registered partnerships:

  • Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes, COM(2011) 126 of 16 March 2011;
  • Proposal for a Council Regulation on jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions regarding the property consequences of registered partnerships, COM(2011) 127 of 16 March 2011.

The proposals are accompanied by a Communication from the Commission “Bringing legal clarity to property rights for international couples” –  COM(2011) 125 of 16 March 2011 – which describes the difficulties faced by international couples in the current framework of EU legislation and national rules of the 27 Member States (see also the figures presented in the press release and the related FAQs).

The origin of the initiative dates back to the early days of the “communitarisation” of the conflict of laws. According to the Explanatory Memorandum to doc. COM(2011) 126:

The adoption of European legislation on matrimonial property regimes was among the priorities identified in the 1998 Vienna Action Plan. The programme on mutual recognition of decisions in civil and commercial matters adopted by the Council on 30 November 2001 provided for the drafting of an instrument on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions as regards ‘rights in property arising out of a matrimonial relationship and the property consequences of the separation of an unmarried couple’. The Hague programme, which was adopted by the European Council on 4 and 5 November 2004, set the implementation of the mutual recognition programme as a top priority and called on the Commission to submit a Green Paper on ‘the conflict of laws in matters concerning matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition’, and stressed the need to adopt legislation by 2011.

A thorough research on the matter was previously carried in 2003 at an academic level, on behalf of the Commission, by the TMC Asser Instituut and the Département de droit international of the Catholic University of Leuven (UCL) (the whole study  – Final Report in French and Country Reports on the legislation of Member States – can be downloaded from the Documentation Centre of the DG Justice, Freedom and Security). The Green Paper on conflict of laws in matters concerning matrimonial property regimes, including the question of jurisdiction and mutual recognition, was published on 17 July 2006, and received nearly forty replies in the public consultation launched by the Commission.

The 2009 Stockholm Programme came back to the need of European legislation in the field, stating that mutual recognition should be extended to matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of the separation of unmarried couples. The need was further stressed in the ‘EU Citizenship Report 2010: Dismantling the obstacles to EU citizens’ rights‘ (p. 5 ff.), adopted on 27 October 2010, where the Commission announced for 2011 an official legislative initiative. The drafting of the proposals is summarised as follows in the Explanatory memorandum:

A group of experts, PRM/III, was set up by the Commission to draw up the proposal. The group was made up of experts representing the range of professions concerned and the different European legal traditions; it met five times between 2008 and 2010. The Commission also held a public hearing on 28 September 2009 involving some hundred participants; the debates confirmed the need for an EU instrument for matrimonial property regimes that covered in particular applicable law, jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of decisions. A meeting with national experts was held on 23 March 2010 to discuss the thrust of the proposal being drafted.
Finally, the Commission conducted a joint impact study on the proposals for Regulations on matrimonial property regimes and the property consequences of registered partnerships. [see doc. n. SEC(2011) 327 fin. and SEC(2011)328 fin. of 16 March 2011]

Pursuant to Art. 81(3) TFEU the proposed regulations, as “measures concerning family law with cross-border implications”, are subject to a special legislative procedure: the Council shall act unanimously, after consulting the European Parliament. The second subparagraph of Art. 81(3), however, provides a “passerelle-clause”, under which “the Council, on a proposal from the Commission, may adopt a decision determining those aspects of family law with cross-border implications which may be the subject of acts adopted by the ordinary legislative procedure”. The third subparagraph of the provision grants to national Parliaments of the Member States a veto power, to be exercised within six months of the notification of the Commission’s proposal to enact the “passerelle”.