Hungarian Case Law Relating to European Private Law (2013-2014)

Author(s):  
Viktória Harsági

AbstractThe present writing is the fifth part of a series entitled “Hungarian Case Law Relating to European Private Law”, which presents the essence of court decisions made since last summer. Similarly to the earlier years, the majority of the cases concern questions of family law, more specifically, questions relating to parental responsibility. Besides three decisions of the Curia (Kúria) relating to this topic, the Curia has delivered its first decision on the European order for payment procedure, which decision will be presented in the present article as the first in order.

Author(s):  
Sabrina D’Andrea ◽  
Nikita Divissenko ◽  
Maria Fanou ◽  
Anna Krisztián ◽  
Jaka Kukavica ◽  
...  

Recent years have seen a growing volume of research on citations between courts from different countries. This article fills a gap in the current literature by presenting and analysing cross-citations between the highest domestic courts responsible for matters of private law in the EU from 2000 to 2018. It addresses two main questions: first, to what extent do judges cite foreign case law in their decisions? Second, what may explain the varying levels of engagement of supreme courts with foreign case law? Our findings offer a mixed result as to the nature and frequency of such cross-citations. Overall, we identify 2984 cross-citations; yet, only in few instances do we find a reciprocal relationship between the supreme courts of two countries, while more generally an asymmetric picture emerges. The article also discusses whether problems with the ease of access to court decisions may partly be responsible for limitations in the use of cross-citations.


2005 ◽  
Vol 23 (1) ◽  
pp. 135-173
Author(s):  
Micheline McNicoll

An exhaustive review of our case law is required for a proper understanding of municipalities' civil liability for offences and quasi-offences. It appears indeed that there is no other alternative since, on one hand, the legislator is mute on number of important relevant questions and, on the other hand, municipalities, are governed by rules of public law. Our review covering a period of about eighty years, contains an analysis of the three « schools of thought » that succesively exerciced considerable influence upon our court decisions. The different « schools of thought » naturally emerged from the constant opposition of public and private law divided by a boundary line subject to fluctuation.


Author(s):  
Stephen Gilmore ◽  
Lisa Glennon

Hayes and Williams’ Family Law, now in its sixth edition, provides critical and case-focused discussion of the key legislation and debates affecting adults and children. The volume takes a critical approach to the subject and includes ‘talking points’ and focused ‘discussion questions’ throughout each chapter which highlight areas of debate or controversy. The introductory chapter within this edition provides a discussion of the law’s understanding of ‘family’ and the extent to which this has changed over time, a detailed overview of the meaning of private and family life within Article 8 of the ECHR, and a discussion of the Family Justice Review and subsequent developments. Part 1 of this edition, supplemented by the ‘Latest Developments’ section, outlines the most up-to-date statistics on the incidence of marriage, civil partnerships and divorce, discusses recent case law on the validity of marriage such as Hayatleh v Mofdy [2017] EWCA Civ 70 and K v K (Nullity: Bigamous Marriage) [2016] EWHC 3380 (Fam), and highlights the recent Supreme Court decision (In the Matter of an Application by Denise Brewster for Judicial Review (Northern Ireland) [2017] 1 WLR 519) on the pension rights of unmarried cohabitants. It also considers the litigation concerning the prohibition of opposite-sex civil partnership registration from the judgment of the Court of Appeal in Steinfeld and Keidan v Secretary of State for Education [2017] EWCA Civ 81 to the important decision of the Supreme Court in R (on the application of Steinfeld and Keidan) (Application) v Secretary of State for International Development (in substitution for the Home Secretary and the Education Secretary) [2018] UKSC 32. This edition also provides an in-depth discussion of the recent Supreme Court decision in Owens v Owens [2018] UKSC 41 regarding the grounds for divorce and includes discussion of Thakkar v Thakkar [2016] EWHC 2488 (Fam) on the divorce procedure. Further, this edition also considers the flurry of cases in the area of financial provision on divorce such as Waggott v Waggott [2018] EWCA Civ 722; TAB v FC (Short Marriage: Needs: Stockpiling) [2016] EWHC 3285; FF v KF [2017] EWHC 1903 (Fam); BD v FD (Financial Remedies: Needs) [2016] EWHC 594 (Fam); Juffali v Juffali [2016] EWHC 1684 (Fam); AAZ v BBZ [2016] EWHC 3234 (Fam); Scatliffe v Scatliffe [2016] UKPC 36; WM v HM [2017] EWFC 25; Hart v Hart [2017] EWCA Civ 1306; Sharp v Sharp [2017] EWCA Civ 408; Work v Gray [2017] EWCA Civ 270, and Birch v Birch [2017] UKSC 53. It also considers the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Mills v Mills [2018] UKSC 38 concerning post-divorce maintenance obligations between former partners, and the Privy Council decision in Marr v Collie [2017] UKPC 17 relating to the joint name purchase by a cohabiting couple of investment property.Part 2 focuses on child law, examining the law on parenthood and parental responsibility, including the parental child support obligation. This edition includes discussion of new case law on provision of child maintenance by way of global financial orders (AB v CD (Jurisdiction: Global Maintenance Orders)[2017] EWHC 3164), new case law and legislative/policy developments on section 54 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 2008 (parental orders transferring legal parenthood in surrogacy arrangements), and new cases on removing and restricting parental responsibility (Re A and B (Children: Restrictions on Parental Responsibility: Radicalisation and Extremism) [2016] EWFC 40 and Re B and C (Change of Names: Parental Responsibility: Evidence) [2017] EWHC 3250 (Fam)). Orders regulating the exercise of parental responsibility are also examined, and this edition updates the discussion with an account of the new Practice Direction 12J (on contact and domestic abuse), and controversial case law addressing the tension between the paramountcy of the child’s welfare and the protected interests of a parent in the context of a transgender father’s application for contact with his children (Re M (Children) [2017] EWCA Civ 2164). Part 2 also examines the issue of international child abduction, including in this edition the Supreme Court’s latest decision, on the issue of repudiatory retention (Re C (Children) [2018] UKSC 8). In the public law, this edition discusses the Supreme Court’s clarification of the nature and scope of local authority accommodation under section 20 of the Children Act 1989 (Williams v London Borough of Hackney [2018] UKSC 37). In the law of adoption, several new cases involving children who have been relinquished by parents for adoption are examined (Re JL & AO (Babies Relinquished for Adoption),[2016] EWHC 440 (Fam) and see also Re M and N (Twins: Relinquished Babies: Parentage) [2017] EWFC 31, Re TJ (Relinquished Baby: Sibling Contact) [2017] EWFC 6, and Re RA (Baby Relinquished for Adoption: Final Hearing)) [2016] EWFC 47).


2012 ◽  
Vol 30 (1) ◽  
pp. 139
Author(s):  
Jona Goldschmidt ◽  
Loretta Stalans

How much assistance should a trial judge provide a self-represented litigant [SRL] before the judge’s impartiality will be reasonably questioned? This question has been of continuing concern to both the bench and bar ever since the rise of the pro se litigation movement in the late 1990s, particularly in the context of “mixed” cases involving an SRL and a represented party. Case law and ethics codes provide inconsistent decisions and vague guidelines for judges, who must balance their duty to provide reasonable assistance with their duty to ensure a fair trial for all parties. This paper reports the results of a survey administered to 210 Canadian family law practitioners who were presented with 16 hypothetical scenarios involving an SRL and a represented party. Respondents indicated their views regarding the impartiality and helpfulness of the trial judge in each scenario, involving various procedural defaults by the SRL and different forms of judicial assistance or lack thereof. The results indicate that lawyers' perceptions of a judge's impartiality are affected, inter alia, by the favourability of the outcome for the SRL, and whether the assistance provided dealt with procedural or substantive matters. Future research is needed to determine whether a consensus can be established regarding perceptions of lawyers, lay persons, and judges regarding which forms of assistance are reasonable and required, permissible, or impermissible.Jusqu’à quel point un juge de première instance peut-il venir en aide à une partie qui se représente elle-même sans que son impartialité puisse raisonnablement être mise en doute? Cette question ne cesse de préoccuper les juges et les avocats depuis l’essor qu’a pris le phénomène de l’autoreprésentation à la fin des années 1990, en particulier dans le contexte des cas « mixtes », impliquant une partie qui se représente elle-même et une partie représentée par un avocat. La jurisprudence et les codes de déontologie fournissent des décisions contradictoires et des lignes directrices vagues aux juges, qui doivent trouver un équilibre entre leur devoir de fournir une aide raisonnable et leur obligation d’assurer un procès équitable à toutes les parties. Le présent article expose les résultats d’une enquête réalisée auprès de 210 spécialistes du droit de la famille du Canada, auxquels on a soumis 16 scénarios hypothétiques impliquant une partie se représentant elle-même et une partie représentée par un avocat. Les répondants ont indiqué leur point de vue quant à l’impartialité et à l’aide accordée par le juge de première instance dans chacun des scénarios. Les scénarios comportaient diverses erreurs de procédure commises par la partie se représentant elle-même et différentes formes d’aide judiciaire ou l’absence d’aide de cette nature. Les résultats indiquent que la façon dont les avocats perçoivent l’impartialité d’un juge est affectée, entre autres, par la mesure dans laquelle l’issue est favorable pour la partie se représentant elle-même et par le fait que l’aide a porté sur des procédures ou sur des questions de fond. Il faudra d’autres recherches pour déterminer si un consensus peut être atteint relativement à la façon dont les avocats, les non-initiés et les juges perçoivent les formes d’aide qui sont raisonnables et requises, autorisées ou interdites.


Author(s):  
Ruth Gaffney-Rhys

The Concentrate Questions and Answers series offers the best preparation for tackling exam and assignment questions. Each book includes key debates, typical questions, diagram answer plans, suggested answers, author commentary, and tips to gain extra marks. Concentrate Q&A Family Law offers expert advice on what to expect from your family law exam, how best to prepare, and guidance on what examiners are really looking for. Written by an experienced examiner, it provides: clear commentary with each question and answer; diagram answer plans; tips to make your answer really stand out from the crowd; and further reading suggestions at the end of every chapter. The book should help you to: identify typical family law exam questions; structure a good answer; avoid common mistakes; show the examiner what you know; make your answer stand out; and find relevant further reading. After an introduction on exam skills for success in family law, chapters cover: marriage, civil partnerships, and cohabitation; void, voidable. and non-existent marriages; divorce and judicial separation; domestic violence; family property; financial relief and child support; parenthood and parental responsibility; children's rights and private law; international relocation and abduction; public law and adoption; mixed topic questions and skills for success in coursework assessments.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document