General Principles of EU Law and European Private Law. Ed. by Ulf Bernitz, Xavier Groussot and Felix Schulyok. Alphen aan den Rijn 2013

2015 ◽  
Vol 79 (2) ◽  
pp. 429
Author(s):  
Moritz Hennemann
Keyword(s):  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law

Ships, sovereign immunity and the subtleties of the Brussels I regulation: Case C-641/18 LG and others v. Rina SpA, Ente Registro Italiano Navale: Ships, sovereign immunity and the subtleties of Brussels I: Rina

2021 ◽  
pp. 1023263X2110059
Author(s):  
Vincent Power
Keyword(s):  
Member State ◽  
International Law ◽  
Red Sea ◽  
State Court ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Commercial Activity ◽  
Sovereign Immunity ◽  
Public International Law ◽  
Flag State

More than 1000 passengers on a Panamanian-registered ferry drowned in the Red Sea. Some survivors and relatives of some of the victims sued the classification and certification ship society which had surveyed the ferry. Relying on the Brussels I Regulation, the plaintiffs sued the defendants in the latter’s seat (in Italy). The defendants claimed sovereign immunity as they were acting on behalf of Panama (that is, the flag state). The CJEU ruled that, generally, Article 1(1) of the Regulation means that an action for damages, brought against private-law corporations engaged in the classification and certification of ships on behalf of, and upon delegation from, a non-EU Member State, falls within the concept of ‘civil and commercial matters’ in the Regulation. The defendants were therefore not immune. The CJEU qualified its ruling by saying that this is conditional on the activity being not exercised under ‘public powers’ (within the meaning of EU law) because then it would then be a sovereign and not a commercial activity. The CJEU thereby ruled that the customary public international law principle that foreign states have immunity from jurisdiction does not preclude an EU Member State court seised of a dispute from exercising jurisdiction under the Regulation in these circumstances.

scholarly journals Protection of fundamental rights in the private law of the European Union

2020 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 117-153
Author(s):  
Tatjana Josipović
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Member State ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Optimal Balance ◽  
Private Autonomy

The paper considers and comments on the instruments of protection of the fundamental rights of the Union in private law relationships that are in the scope of applicable EU law. Special attention is paid to the influence of fundamental rights of the Union on private autonomy and the freedom of contract in private law relationships depending on whether fundamental rights are protected by national law harmonized with EU law, or by horizontal effects of the Charter of general principles. The goal of the paper is to determine the method in private law relationships that can attain the optimal balance between the protection of fundamental rights of the Union and the principle of private autonomy and the freedom of contract regulated by national law of a member state. The author favors the protection of fundamental rights in private law relationships by applying adequate measures that create indirect horizontal effects of the provisions of EU law on fundamental rights. These concern national measures that can also secure adequate protection of fundamental rights via interpretation and application of national law in line with EU law in private law relationships.

scholarly journals Interpreting retained EU private law post-Brexit: Can commonwealth comparisons help us determine the future relevance of CJEU case law?

2019 ◽  
Vol 48 (1-2) ◽  
pp. 15-38
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
European Union ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Privy Council ◽  
Legal Perspective ◽  
The Future ◽  
The Uk ◽  
The Right

In June 2016, the United Kingdom voted in a referendum to leave the European Union (EU). The consequences of Brexit are wide-ranging, but, from a legal perspective, it will entail the repeal of the European Communities Act 1972. The UK government does not intend to repeal EU law which is in existence on exit day, but, in terms of the interpretation of retained law, decisions of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) will no longer be binding after Brexit. Nevertheless, s. 6(2) of the EU (Withdrawal) Act 2018 does allow the UK courts to continue to pay regard to EU law and decisions of the CJEU ‘so far as it is relevant to any matter before the court’. This article will consider the meaning of the phrase ‘ may have regard to anything…so far as it is relevant’. In empowering the courts to consider post-Brexit CJEU authority subject to the undefined criterion of relevancy, how is this power likely to be exercised? A comparison will be drawn with the treatment of Privy Council and the UK case law in Commonwealth courts following the abolition of the right of appeal to the Privy Council, with particular reference to the example of Australia. It will be argued that guidance may be obtained from the common law legal family which can help us predict the future relevance and persuasiveness of CJEU case law in the interpretation of retained EU private law.

THE INFLUENCE OF EU AND EUROPEAN HUMAN RIGHTS LAW ON ENGLISH PRIVATE LAW

2015 ◽  
Vol 64 (2) ◽  
pp. 237-265 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paula Giliker
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Empirical Studies ◽  
Comparative Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Human Rights Law ◽  
European Court ◽  
Human Rights Act ◽  
Human Rights Act 1998 ◽  
The Common

AbstractThis article examines the extent to which EU and European human rights law, following the enactment of the European Communities Act 1972 and the Human Rights Act 1998, have changed the manner in which English courts use comparative law in the private law field. Despite legislative intervention rendering EU law part of the national legal system and requiring the courts ‘to take into account’ the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, there remains evidence that private law courts retain a preference for comparisons within the common law world. This article will examine, with reference to a number of recent empirical studies, the reasons for this position and what this signifies in terms of future comparative law reasoning.

scholarly journals The Impact of EU Law on Private Law - some thoughts on the impact of the non-discrimination principle on private autonomy

2013 ◽  
Vol 13 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Norbert Reich
Keyword(s):  
Case Law ◽  
Fundamental Rights ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Eu Law ◽  
Freedom Of Contract ◽  
Consumer Law ◽  
Charter Of Fundamental Rights ◽  
Private Autonomy ◽  
The Impact ◽  
The Eu

The paper discusses a new dimension of EU law, namely its impact on private law based on the principle of non-discrimination, thus deliberately going beyond concepts of autonomy and freedom of contract as recognised in all Member States and by the EU itself. Article 21 of the EU Charter of Fundamental Rights has �constitutionalised� this principle which originally found recognition in several EU directives on employment and consumer law analysed in this paper with a special regard to the growing case-law of the Court of Justice of the EU (ECJ).

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document