The 20th Anniversary of the International Hague Network of Judges

The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau published yesterday Volume XXIII of the Judges’ Newsletter on International Child Protection (Winter 2018-Spring 2019)  with a Special Focus on “The 20th Anniversary of the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ)”. Table of Contents:

“Judicial activism – The IHNJ & the Judges’ Newsletter: a 20 year evolution, Sir Mathew Thorpe

Judicial Co-operation in a “Triangle” Martina Erb-Klünemann

10 years working as Member of the International Hague Network of Judge, Graciela Tagle de Ferreyra

Article 13 Exceptions – Return and Best Interests of the Child in the Jurisdiction of England andWales, The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

Active Case Management and Court Based Mediation in Child Abduction, Proceedings in England andWales, The Honourable Mr Justice MacDonald

Advertisements

Note on “common courts” in draft Hague Judgments Convention

The Hague Conference Permanent Bureau has published last month (April 2019) a new preliminary document in anticipation of the 22nd Diplomatic Session from 18 June to 2 July 2019 (Judgments Convention): Prel. Doc. No 7 of April 2019 – Note on “common courts” in Article 4(5), (6) of the 2018 draft Convention. It may be accessed here

CJEU on Article 7.1 Brussels I bis and Article 4.1 Rome I

The Court of Justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑25/18 (Bryan Andrew Kerr v Pavlo Postnov, Natalia Postnova), which is about Article 7.1 Brussels I bis and Article 4.1 Rome I:

“1. Article 7(1)(a) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a dispute concerning a payment obligation arising from a decision taken by a general meeting of the owners of property in a building, which does not have legal personality and has been specifically established by law in order to exercise certain rights, — where that decision has been taken by a majority of members, but binds all members — must be regarded as falling within the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’ within the meaning of that provision.

AG Bobek on Article 53 Brussels I bis (order for payment and consumer protection)

AG Bobek delivered on 7 May 2019 his opinion in case C‑347/18 (Alessandro Salvoni v Anna Maria Fiermonte), which is about Article 53 Brussels I bis:

« 11. By application lodged on 3 November 2015, Mr Alessandro Salvoni, a lawyer based in Milan, asked the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) to issue Ms Anna Maria Fiermonte (who resides in Hamburg) with a payment order for an amount owed to him as consideration for the professional services rendered by him in connection with legal proceedings concerning a will.

12. On 26 October 2015, the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) issued a payment order for the sum of EUR 53 297.68, plus interest and costs (‘the payment order in question’).

13. Ms Fiermonte did not challenge the payment order in question, which became final. Mr Salvoni then requested the Tribunale di Milano (District Court, Milan) to issue the Article 53 Certificate with respect to that order.

14. However, following an internet search carried out of its own motion, and after reviewing the submissions of Mr Salvoni, the referring court came to the conclusion that: (i) the relationship between Ms Fiermonte and Mr Salvoni was one between a consumer and a professional, and (ii) Mr Salvoni directed his activities to the Member State of the consumer’s domicile within the meaning of Article 17(1)(c) of Regulation No 1215/2012. Against that background, that court took the view that, pursuant to Article 18(2) of Regulation No 1215/2012, Mr Salvoni should have brought proceedings against his client in the courts of the Member State in which the latter is domiciled (Germany).

CJEU on Article 15 Lugano II

The Court of Justice delivered on 2 May 2019 its judgment in Case C‑694/17 (“Pillar Securitisation Sàrl v Hildur Arnadottir”), which is about Lugano II:

“Article 15 of the Convention on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters, signed on 30 October 2007 […] must be interpreted as meaning that, for the purposes of ascertaining whether a credit agreement is a credit agreement concluded by a ‘consumer’ within the meaning of Article 15, it must not be determined whether the agreement falls within the scope of Directive 2008/48/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 April 2008 on credit agreements for consumers and repealing Council Directive 87/102/EEC, in the sense that the total cost of credit in question does not exceed the ceiling set out in Article 2(2)(c) of that directive, and that it is irrelevant, in that regard, that the national law transposing that directive does not provide for a higher ceiling”.

Source: here

Nicaragua now a party to the Hague Evidence and Child Support Conventions

On 18 April 2019, the Hague Conference Permanent Bureau was informed that on 8 March 2019 Nicaragua had acceded to the HCCH Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance, which will enter into force for Nicaragua on 18 April 2020.

On 28 April 2019, the HCCH Convention of 18 March 1970 on the Taking of Evidence Abroad in Civil or Commercial Matters entered into force for Nicaragua, following the accession on 27 February 2019.

Sources: here and there

AG Bobek on Article 4 Insolvency Regulation

Advocate General Bobek delivered yesterday (30 April 2019) his opinion in case C‑198/18 (CeDe Group AB v KAN Sp. z o.o. (in insolvency)), which is about the Insolvency Regulation:

“Article 4 of Council Regulation (EC) No 1346/2000 of 29 May 2000 on insolvency proceedings [….] does not apply to the determination of the law applicable to a claim which is the subject of an action brought before the courts of a Member State by the liquidator of a company subject to insolvency proceedings in another Member State, where that action seeks payment from another company on the basis of contractual obligations entered into before that insolvency”.

Source: here

Publication of the EU Justice Scoreboard 2019

The European Commission published today the 2019 EU Justice Scoreboard, which gives a comparative overview of the independence, quality and efficiency of justice systems in EU Member States.

Key findings: “Some positive trends on the efficiency of justice systems: The Scoreboard shows that over eight years (2010-2017) positive developments can be observed in most of the Member States identified in the European Semester as facing specific challenges. Since 2010, in nearly all of those Member States, the length of first instance court proceedings has decreased or at least remained stable. Moreover, first instance proceedings in money laundering court cases take up to a year on average. However, in some Member States facing challenges in this area, proceedings can still take two or more years.

Towards an instrument on cross-border issues related to judicial sale of ships?

From 13 to 17 May 2019, UNCITRAL Working Group VI (Judicial Sale of Ships) is expected to start work on preparation of a draft instrument on the judicial sale of ships.

Background:

“5. At its fiftieth session (Vienna, 3–21 July 2017), the Commission noted the importance of a proposal by the Comité Maritime International (CMI) for possible future work on cross-border issues related to the judicial sale of ships (A/CN.9/923). The CMI proposal drew attention to problems arising around the world from the failure to give recognition to foreign judgments ordering the sale of ships.1 It was stated that a short, self-contained instrument along the lines of the Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards could provide a solution to those problems by enabling clean title to vessels to be recognized across borders. While swift resolution of the questions raised by the proposal was encouraged, it was agreed that additional information in respect of the breadth of the problem would be useful.

CJEU on Articles 7(5) and 26(1) Brussels I bis

The Court of justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑464/18 (ZX v Ryanair DAC), which is about Brussels I bis

“1. Article 7(5) of Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 […] must be interpreted as meaning that a court of a Member State does not have jurisdiction to hear a dispute concerning a claim for compensation brought under Article 7 of Regulation (EC) No 261/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 February 2004 establishing common rules on compensation and assistance to passengers in the event of denied boarding and of cancellation or long delay of flights […] and directed against an airline, established in the territory of another Member State, on the ground that that company has a branch within the territorial jurisdiction of the court seised, without that branch having been involved in the legal relationship between the airline and the passenger concerned.