Jurisdiction in Cases Related to a Licence Contract Under Art. 5(1) Brussels Regulation: Case-Note on Judgment ECJ Case C-533/07 – Falco Privatstiftung and Thomas Rabitsch v. Gisela Weller-Lindhorst

Author(s):  
Mary-Rose MCGUIRE
2017 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 273-289
Author(s):  
Anmari Meerkotter

The Constitutional Court (CC) judgment of Lee v Minister of Correction Services 2013 2SA 144 (CC) is a recent contribution to transformative constitutional jurisprudence in the field of the law of delict. This matter turned on the issue of factual causation in the context of wrongful and negligent systemic omissions by the state. In this case note, I explore the law relating to this element of delictual liability with specific regard to the traditional test for factual causation – the conditio sine qua non (‘but-for’) test. In particular, I note the problems occasioned by formalistic adherence to this test in the context of systemic state omissions as evidenced by the SCA judgment in the same matter. I also consider the manner in which English courts have addressed this problem. Thereafter, I analyse the CC’s broader approach to the determination of factual causation as one based on common sense and justice. I argue that this approach endorses a break from a formalistic application of the test and constitutes a step towards an approach which resonates with the foundational constitutional values of freedom, dignity and equality. Furthermore, it presents an appropriate solution to the problems associated with factual causation where systemic omissions are concerned. I then consider the transformative impact of the Lee judgment. In particular, I argue that the broader enquiry favoured by the CC facilitates the realisation of constitutionally guaranteed state accountability, and amounts to an extension of the existing norm of accountability jurisprudence. Hence, I contend that the judgment presents a further effort by the Constitutional Court to effect wholesale the constitutionalisation of the law of delict, as well as a vindicatory tool to be used by litigants who have been adversely affected by systemic state omissions.


2017 ◽  
Vol 31 (1) ◽  
pp. 240-246 ◽  
Author(s):  
Fatima Osman
Keyword(s):  

2011 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 665-670
Author(s):  
D.C. Bauer ◽  
G. Muntean

Author(s):  
Hayk Kupelyants

Chapter 3 examines the international jurisdiction in sovereign debt disputes and particularly the following matters: service of proceedings; the jurisdiction under the Brussels Regulation, the jurisdiction under English national rules; individual standing of beneficial bondholders; class actions. The chapter also examines the issue of pre-emptive strikes in sovereign debt litigation, in other words whether private creditors may initiate legal actions before the conclusion of the sovereign debt restructuring and how courts may constrain such litigation. The chapter argues that the English courts may stay proceedings if they are brought in contravention of the powers of bondholders under majority action clauses. The chapter lastly addresses the issue of whether the majority may modify the bonds after the English court has issued a judgment.


Proceedings ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 77 (1) ◽  
pp. 20
Author(s):  
Adrian Cherney

In recent years, there has been a proliferation of programs aimed at preventing radicalization and disengaging known violent extremists. Some programs have targeted individuals through the use of case management approaches and the development of individual intervention plans (e.g., the Desistance and Disengagement Program and the Channel program in the UK; the Australian New South Wales Corrections Proactive Integrated Support Model—PRISM—and state-based division initiatives in Australia). There is a broad consensus in the literature that the evaluation of such initiatives has been neglected. However, the evaluation of case-managed interventions to counter violent extremism (CVE) is challenging. They can have small caseloads which makes it difficult to have any comparison or control group. Client participation can vary over time, with no single intervention plan being alike. This can make it hard to untangle the relative influence of different components of the intervention on indicators of radicalization and disengagement. In this presentation, results from primary research that set out to evaluate case-managed CVE interventions in Australia and develop evaluation metrics are presented. This research involves the examination of interventions implemented by New South Wales corrections and state police. The effectiveness of these interventions was assessed against a five-point metric of client change. Client change overtime was analyzed using case note information collected by the various interventions on client participation. Results show that client change is not a linear process and that the longer an individual is engaged in a case-managed intervention, the more likely they are to demonstrate change relating to disengagement. Specific case studies are used to illustrate trajectories and turning points related to radicalization and to highlight the role of case-managed interventions in facilitating disengagement. Key elements of effective interventions include the provision of ongoing informal support. Investment in capturing case note information should be a priority of intervention providers. Different challenges confronted by case-managed CVE interventions are highlighted.


2021 ◽  
pp. 1-16
Author(s):  
Salim S. Sleiman

On September 3, 2020, following a request from the Dutch Supreme Court, the First Chamber of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) rendered its preliminary ruling in Supreme Site Services and Others v. SHAPE on the interpretation of Articles 1(1) and 24(5) of the European Union (EU) Regulation 1215/2012 on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters (Recast Brussels Regulation).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document