On 1 April 2017, the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations will enter into force for Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan will become the 28th State to be bound by the Protocol.
Source: here
31 Friday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inOn 1 April 2017, the Hague Protocol of 23 November 2007 on the Law Applicable to Maintenance Obligations will enter into force for Kazakhstan. Kazakhstan will become the 28th State to be bound by the Protocol.
Source: here
30 Thursday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe European Commission released last week (24 March 2017) a press statement on the 1st year of the European ODR platform. According to it, in this “first year, over 24 000 consumer complaints were lodged. More than a third of the complaints concerned cross-border purchases within the EU. Most complaints were about clothing and footwear, airline tickets and information and communication technology goods”. We also learn that 260 alternative dispute resolution (ADR) bodies were registered on the platform and that Norway, Iceland and Liechtenstein will join the platform. The Commission will prepare a first detailed report on the functioning of the platform towards the end of 2017.
Source: here
25 Saturday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inIn perfect timing, in between a week that has seen the publication of two different reports of the UK Parliament on Brexit and (notably) European Civil Justice (House of Lords, here; House of Commons, there) and the commemoration of the 60th Anniversary of the 1957 EEC Treaty today, and next week which will see, on 29th March 2017, the notification of Brexit by the UK Government, a conference took place yesterday in Valenciennes (France) on Brexit, thanks in particular to Marion Hodac. In fact, it was the third in a cycle of conferences focusing on a 360 degrees approach to Brexit and supported by three Universities (Lille 2, Littoral Côte d’Opale and Valenciennes). A panel was dedicated to Brexit and International Commercial Litigation with a paper delivered by Gilles Cuniberti and myself intervening as ‘expert-discutant’, i.e. commenting on the paper and going further (there was also a second panel on family law).
In a first part, G. Cuniberti exposed several of the difficulties Brexit will create and the difference between, on the one hand, the Regulations on the applicable law and, on the other hand, the Brussels I bis Regulation. Well-known solutions were discussed, such as the possibility to return to the 1968 Brussels Convention or the adhesion to the Lugano II Convention. An opinion was expressed on each of those points.
In a second part, G. Cuniberti argued that Brexit was in reality a chance for English law given its superiority over all others, whether in respect of substantive contract law, private international law (international jurisdiction) and the judiciary. Continental law (without any distinction of origin) was described in strong negative terms in the written report.
I share many of the views expressed by the author in his first part. I must add, however, that I believe that problems that we deemed solved and which have thus been relegated to the sub-conscious are going to reappear. They may even be the toughest ones to crack in the negotiations, in contrast with the status / potential succession of the Brussels I bis, Rome I and Rome II Regulations.
25 Saturday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe House of Commons (Justice Committee) has published on 22 March its report on Implications of Brexit for the justice system (Ninth Report of Session 2016–17), which focus notably on Civil Justice.
Summary (p. 3):
“Brexit can be realised in innumerably many ways, each with divergent consequences in different sectors of policy importance: we investigated its implications for the justice system to inform the Government—and Parliamentary and public debates—on key priorities for criminal justice, civil law, and the legal services sector.
[…]
In civil justice, EU regulations establish procedures on choice of jurisdiction, and mutual recognition and enforcement of judgments, for transnational disputes. Protecting the UK as a top-class commercial law centre should be a major priority for the Government given the clear impacts on the economy of failure to do so: we recommend that the Government look to replicate existing provisions as closely as possible. Similar provisions in family law provide greater speed in child abduction cases, for example, and represent improvements over their default alternatives. We believe that a role for the Court of Justice of the European Union in respect of these essentially procedural regulations is a price worth paying to maintain effective cross-border tools of justice.
25 Saturday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe House of Lords (European Union Committee) has published on 20 March 2017 its 17th Report of Session 2016–17. The topic is Brexit: justice for families, individuals and businesses?
Summary (p. 3-4):
“This report considers the ramifications of Brexit for the EU’s programme of civil justice cooperation introduced by the three Regulations—the Brussels I (recast), the Brussels IIa and the Maintenance Regulations—which collectively form the so-called Brussels regime. Our inquiry was also shaped by the Government’s view that once we leave the EU there can be no jurisdiction for the Court of Justice of the EU.
The evidence clearly illustrates that these three Regulations and the system they engender play a significant role in the daily lives of UK and EU citizens, families and businesses, who work, live, travel and do business within the EU.
Human relations can go wrong in many ways, including:
All three Regulations provide certainty, predictability and clarity about where the resulting legal dispute should be pursued. They also provide for the automatic recognition and enforcement of judicial decisions and judgments throughout the EU. They regulate a pan-European system of civil justice cooperation, which has been proved to work and reflects the UK’s legal culture. The myriad problems that they seek to address will not cease when we leave the EU.
21 Tuesday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
in“From 14 to 16 March 2017, Members of the HCCH gathered in The Hague for the meeting of the Council on General Affairs and Policy. The Council was attended by 162 participants, representing 67 Members and observers from seven IGO / NGOs.
The Council […] recognised the very good progress made on the Judgments Project and mandated the Secretary General to convene a third meeting of the Special Commission in November 2017. The Council also welcomed the work of the Experts’ Group on Parentage / Surrogacy and instructed the Secretary General to convene a third meeting of this Group in the coming year. Moreover, the Council welcomed plans to hold a Special Commission meeting on the 1980 Child Abduction Convention and 1996 Child Protection in October2017. It also welcomed the imminent entry into force of the 2006 Securities Convention.
[…]
Additionally, the Council discussed matters relating to governance of the Organisation, the pursuit of universality, and a variety of post-Convention activities”.
Source: here
The full Conclusions & Recommendations are available here
15 Wednesday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe Council on General Affairs and Policy of the Hague Conference is currently meeting at the Academy of International Law in the Peace Palace premises in The Hague. The 2nd day (today) saw the signature by Belarus of the Hague Convention of 23 November 2007 on the International Recovery of Child Support and Other Forms of Family Maintenance and the ratification by Cyprus of the Hague Convention of 1 July 1985 on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition (https://www.hcch.net/en/news-archive/details/?varevent=546)
The Council is examining these days several items of interest to the readers of this blog. Among the most advanced projects comes the Judgments project, with the discussion of the brief report on the Special Commission meeting of February 2017 (https://assets.hcch.net/docs/9b00eb40-3508-418a-a220-389939259ec1.pdf, with the February 2017 Draft Convention p. 3).
Especially worth mentioning are the detailed report of the Experts’ Group on surrogacy (https://assets.hcch.net/docs/8b00d3a1-6c2d-4b8b-b3d9-7db43f9bb025.pdf), as well as the fact that Australia should ratify the Choice of court convention this year (https://assets.hcch.net/docs/a357a94b-5bac-44c5-9fa3-4f1a079b2411.pdf, no 4), and that other States may be on their way (idem, nos 5 to 7).
09 Thursday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe Court of justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑484/15, Ibrica Zulfikarpašić v Slaven Gajer, which is about the EEO Regulation (Regulation (EC) No 805/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 21 April 2004 creating a European Enforcement Order for uncontested claims):
“1. [The EEO Regulation means] that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation.
2. Regulation No 805/2004 must be interpreted as meaning that a writ of execution adopted by a notary, in Croatia, based on an ‘authentic document’, and which has not been contested may not be certified as a European Enforcement Order since it does not relate to an uncontested claim within the meaning of Article 3(1) of that regulation”.
Source: here
09 Thursday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe Court of justice delivered today its judgment in case C‑551/15, Pula Parking d.o.o. v Sven Klaus Tederahn, which will be far more welcomed by local authorities than tourists. It is about the scope of application of Brussels I bis (Regulation (EU) No 1215/2012 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 December 2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters) as well as the meaning of court within that Regulation.
“1. Article 1(1) of [Brussels I bis means] that enforcement proceedings brought by a company owned by a local authority against a natural person domiciled in another Member State, for the purposes of recovering an unpaid debt for parking in a public car park, the operation of which has been delegated to that company by that authority, which are not in any way punitive but merely constitute consideration for a service provided, fall within the scope of that regulation.
2. Regulation No 1215/2012 must be interpreted as meaning that, in Croatia, notaries, acting within the framework of the powers conferred on them by national law in enforcement proceedings based on an ‘authentic document’, do not fall within the concept of ‘court’ within the meaning of that regulation”.
Source: here
06 Monday Mar 2017
Posted Uncategorized
inThe Hague Conference on Private International Law announced today that Jamaica adhered on 24 February 2017 to the Hague Convention of 25 October 1980 on the Civil Aspects of International Child Abduction and thus became the 97th Contracting State to that Convention, which will enter into force for Jamaica on 1 May 2017. Jamaica has also designated a judge to the International Hague Network of Judges (IHNJ) specialised in cross-border child protection and family law.
Source: here