1) Réflexions autour de l’accueil de l’injonction Mareva par la Cour de cassation française (note sous Cass. Civ. 1ère, 30 Juin 2004, M. Stolzenberg), Int’l Lis 2005.41-47.


This article offers a commentary on, and not of, the French Supreme Court for private matters decision to welcome the Mareva injunction in France. This writing enjoyed some success. For ex., it seems to have strongly inspired G. Cuniberti, « Le principe de territorialité des voies d’exécution », JDI 2008, p. 963, spec. at 982 where the author, in sharp contrast with his PhD. position (see the published version: “Les mesures conservatoires portant sur des biens situés à l’étranger”, LGDJ, 2000, n° 60), now believes that the main source of regulation regarding enforcement of judgements in cross-border cases does not originate in public international law (a position I have expressed in 1998 and developed in this 2005 article). Moreover, some of the arguments developed in his article are similar to the ones you can find in my article. Compare E. Guinchard, « Réflexions… », n° 22 : « chez Mme Devoize, les exemples d’opérations matérielles d’exécution concernent exclusivement les cas d’arrestation, d’enlèvement ou de tentative d’enlèvement» and. G. Cuniberti, « Le principe… », n° 19 : « Lorsqu’ils envisagent l’intervention d’autorités à l’étranger, ces auteurs discutent exclusivement des hypothèses d’enlèvement de personnes à l’étranger » ; E. Guinchard, « Réflexions… », n° 19 : « Tout au plus [le droit international public] constitue-t-il une limite dans le cadre de laquelle une réglementation du droit international privé de l’exécution peut être conçue, non cette réglementation elle-même » and G. Cuniberti, « Le principe…», n° 53 : « surtout, le droit international public ne fixe qu’un seuil, en deçà duquel il n’est pas permis de descendre » ; E. Guinchard, « Réflexions… », n° 21 : « comment peut-on transposer un raisonnement destiné d’abord voire exclusivement à éviter l’emploi de la force brute entre Etats, à une branche du droit qui régit des relations entre particuliers et où, aujourd’hui, la contrainte physique représente l’exception » and G. Cuniberti, « Le principe… », n° 13 : « La territorialité de la contrainte matérielle est un principe incontestable en droit international. Toutefois, il est douteux qu’il soit d’une grande pertinence en matière de voies d’exécution, tant il est vrai que l’exécution civile ou commerciale ne fait qu’exceptionnellement recours à des autorités policières ou militaires ».

2) Commentaire sur la proposition de règlement instituant une injonction de payer européenne, Petites Affiches, 17 May 2006, p.4


This article offers a detailed and critical analysis of the European Commission 2004 proposal creating an European Order for Payment. It argues that the adoption of this proposal reflects both permanence and change in the design of community building in procedural matters. Permanence in the meaning that the European Commission still focus on business law, as evidenced not only by the harmonized institution (the order for payment was originally created in Italy by and for merchants) but also its model (German law, supposed to be the most effective) and the arguments expressed in support of the proposal (the fight against distortions of competition). Change in the meaning that, with the creation of an harmonized procedure, the European Commission moves away from a libertarian conception (i.e. organising a legal market through the abolition of exequatur) to a more conventional and centralized design: the creation of a single set of rules in parallel to the creation of a new State. Since the proposal was very much inspired by German law the article elaborates on its technical features but also its philosophical assumptions, notably the rationality principle which ultimately leads to the electronic treatment of the entire procedure, in the light of scholars such as Max Weber (his work on the rationalisation of procedure with the emergence of capitalism). The article was finalised in mid-2005 but only published in mid-2006. At my request I was allowed to write a short addendum in March 2006 following the political agreement on what is now Regulation 1896/2006. The addendum may be found at the very end of the article (last paragraph).

3) Book reviews in the field of International Litigation


Here are some of the reviews I have published in academic journals from 2005 to 2008. The reviews were drafted in French but subsequently published in Italian or French, depending on the academic journal. You can find here the French document.The books reviewed are: Eva Storskrubb, Civil Procedure and EU Law. A Policy Area Uncovered, Oxford University Press (Studies in European Law), Oxford, 521 p., ISBN 978-0-19-953317-6; Sylvain Bollée, Les méthodes du droit international privé à l’épreuve des sentences arbitrales Economica, Paris, 2004, 428 p., ISBN 978-2-7178-4843-4; Arnaud Nuyts, L’exception de forum non conveniens. Etude de droit international privé comparé, Bruylant (Brussels) / LGDJ (Paris), 2003, 974 p., ISBN 978-2-8027-1659-4; L. Netten and J.-P. Spinelli, La mondialisation du droit dans un nouvel espace de justice universel, Editions Juridiques et Techniques, Paris, 2004, ISBN 2-910326-35-7; J. Isnard and J. Normand (eds), L’aménagement du droit de l’exécution dans l’espace communautaire : bientôt les premiers instruments, E.J.T., Paris, 2003, 298 p., ISBN 978-2-910326-31-9; J. Isnard and J. Normand (eds), Nouveaux droits dans un nouvel espace européen de justice : le droit processuel et le droit de l’exécution, Editions Juridiques et Techniques, Paris, 2002, 554 p., ISBN 978-2-910326-26-5.

4) Nécessité et possibilité d’une astreinte européenne, Droit des Procédures Internationales, in Droit et Procédures, March-April 2010, p. 2


In this article, I argue that a European Periodic Penalty in civil and commercial matters is both needed and possible. Needed given the severe conceptual and practical difficulties encountered by corresponding national institutions in cross-border cases (especially German Zwangsgelds). Possible given the already existing harmonisation in specific group of countries (Benelux) or the whole European Union (periodic penalty payments imposed by the European Commission in competition law).

5) Breaking point in Luxembourg, New Law Journal, July 2011. 992


This short piece of work is a critical analysis of the UK House of Lords’ EU committee report on the workload of the CJEU (the workload of the Court of Justice of the European Union, 14th Report of Session 2010-11, HL 128). It was published in the New Law Journal on 15th July 2011 at 992. A reform to ease the workload of the CJEU is currently underway in the EU Institutions (with some regulations enacted in 2012), making this article all the more relevant.

6) Chronicle on European Civil Justice (RTDE 2011-4)


This is one of the chronicles on European Civil Justice I regularly publish in the Revue Trimestrielle de droit européen (Dalloz, Paris), the French equivalent of the European Law Review. More specifically, it appeared in the last issue (no 4) of year 2011. Generally, these chronicles are drafted in collaboration with my colleague Professor M. Douchy-Oudot. Exceptionnaly, I drafted this one alone. It deals with the proposal for a European Account Preservation Order, the ambitious and controversial training programme of the European Commission for legal professionals, and the abolition of the nationality requirement for latin notaries in favor of European Citizenship.

7) A Thriving European Civil Justice (Presentation)


Please find attached the summary of contents and foreword of a book published in February 2012 at Dalloz (the French equivalent of Oxford University Press). Contributors from France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Switzerland and the UK were asked to critically analyse the latest developments in the field of European Civil Justice (including the July 2011 proposal for a European Order for Garnishment). They also reflected on what I think were neglected topics such as the opportunity of a Regulation on property law on the model of Rome I and Rome II.

8) Chronicle on European Civil Justice (RTDE 2014-2)

Please find attached my chronicle on European Civil Justice published in the Revue trimestrielle de droit européen in 2014 (April – June 2014). The chronicle is made available with the agreement of the publisher Dalloz. The topic: the reform of the European Order for Payment and the European Small Claims Procedure.


9) Sisyphus in Luxembourg

Emmanuel Guinchard and Marie-Pierre Granger, Sisyphus in Luxembourg, in E. Guinchard and M-P Granger, “The New EU Judiciary”, Kluwer, December 2017. 375

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s