scholarly journals Il Regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010 sulla legge applicabile al divorzio e alla separazione personale nella recente prassi giurisprudenziale italiana = Recent Italian case-law concerning EU Regulation on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Federica Falconi

Riassunto: Il presente contributo propone una breve analisi della prassi applicativa italiana in relazione al regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010 in tema di legge applicabile al divorzio e alla separazione personale. Solo in un ristretto numero di casi le parti si sono avvalse della facoltà di optio legis loro concessa dall’art. 5 del regolamento, accordando preferenza alla legge nazionale comune. Più spesso, in mancanza di un accordo delle parti, la legge applicabile è individuata in applicazione dell’art. 8: ciò conduce nella maggior parte delle ipotesi all’applicazione della legge dello Stato di residenza abituale dei coniugi, con il risultato di favorire l’integrazione sociale e ripristinando altresì la corrispondenza tra forum e jus.Parole chiave: Regolamento (UE) n. 1259/2010, divorzio e separazione personale, conflitti di leggi, diritto internazionale privato dell’Unione europea, optio legis, legge applicabile in mancanza di scelta.Abstract: This article offers a brief analysis of the Italian case-law concerning Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010 on the law applicable to divorce and legal separation. Only in a few cases, spouses have chosen the applicable law according to Article 5, by designating the law of their State of nationality. More frequently, absent a valid choice by the spouses, the law applicable to divorce or legal separation has been determined in accordance with Article 8: this usually leads to the application of the law of the country where the spouses are habitually resident, thereby promoting social integration and also restoring the correspondence between forum and jus.Keywords: Regulation (EU) No 1259/2010, divorce and legal separation, conflict-of-laws rules; private international law of the European Union, choice of law agreement, applicable law in the absence of a choice by the parties.

2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 107-122
Author(s):  
Krzysztof Pacuła

The terms ‘characterization’ (‘classification’) and ‘exercise of characterization’ refer in particular to the efforts made to determine which conflict of law rule — and in the sense presented in this paper, also rule on jurisdiction — which is part of the law of the forum State, should be applied to the circumstances of a particular case. In relation to the norms of private international law of the European Union, the triumph of an autonomous characterization at first sight seems undeniable. The term autonomous characterization (in principle — ‘autonomous interpretation’, the case law usually does not distinguish between exercise of characterization and exercise of interpretation) has been referred to over the last fifty years in order to describe the vast majority of operations of interpretation undertaken in relation to the norms of EU private international law. The contemporary concept of characterization in private law of the European Union, although consistently referred to as ‘autonomous’, does not fully meet the criteria thereof. The papers argues that while the starting point was the autonomous characterization in its pure form (stage one), over time it partially gave way to the place of characterization according to the EU law-oriented legis fori (stage two), and finally it was enriched with new elements which gave it the form of a specific functional characterization (stage three). It is not so much about the consistency of the results of the exercises of characterization with the universal understanding of certain concepts. Exercises of characterization are carried out through the prism of their effects, so as to ensure the effectiveness of the norms of EU law (effet utile) other than rules on conflict of laws and on jurisdiction.


Author(s):  
Marek Świerczyński

Disputes arising from international data breaches can be complex. Despite the introduction of new, unified EU regulation on the protection of personal data (GDPR), the European Union failed to amend the Rome II Regulation on the applicable law to non-contractual liability and to extend its scope to the infringements of privacy. GDPR only contains provisions on international civil procedure. However, there are no supplementing conflict-of-law rules. In order to determine the applicable law national courts have to apply divergent and dispersed national codifications of private international law. The aim of this study is to propose an optimal conflict-of-law model for determining the applicable law in case of infringement of the GDPR’s privacy regime.


2019 ◽  
Vol 11 (2) ◽  
pp. 360
Author(s):  
Elisa Torralba Mendiola

  Resumen: El Reglamento 848/2015, sobre procedimientos de insolvencia regula los problemas de Derecho internacional privado que suscitan las situaciones concursales en el ámbito de la Unión Euro­pea. En este trabajo se analiza la más reciente jurisprudencia del TJUE en materia concursal y los retos que se plantean a día de hoy en el tratamiento de la materia, que ponen de relieve la necesidad de adaptar la aplicación de los textos legales a situaciones políticas –y jurídicas– cambiantes.Palabras clave: insolvencia, cooperación, competencia.Abstract: Regulation 2015/848 on Insolvency Proceedings rules the private international law mat­ters regarding insolvencies within the European Union. This paper analyses the most recent case law of the EUCJ and the challenges actually existing in this area, that evidence the need to adapt the application of the rules to the changing legal and political context.Keywords: insolvency, cooperation, jurisdiction.


Author(s):  
Кирилл Нам ◽  
Kirill Nam

The tendency toward unification of EU countries’ national legal orders is a natural and necessary part of integration processes within the European Union. However, due to the diversity and differences of legal systems and cultures in the European states, the question of establishing a complete uniformity of material legal norms, first of all, in the field of private law, seems to be the one of a remote future. In this regard, a milestone development has been the unification of EU countries’ legal norms of private international law concerning non-contractual obligations, i. e. the adoption and entry into force of the EU Regulation (Rome II). One of the main novelties introduced therein is the principle of parties’ autonomy according to which parties to a non-contractual obligation have the right to choose the law to be applied to their relationship. The author analyzes and systemizes the limits of such a choice contained in the EU Regulation (Rome II). Parties to non-contractual obligations through the choice of applicable law can build their relationships in a way that corresponds to their goals and wishes. However, at the same time they should carefully consider all limitations of their choice of law and possible legal implications of it which are contained in the EU Regulation (Rome II).


2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 70
Author(s):  
Esperanza Castellanos Ruiz

Resumen: El Reglamento 650/2012 del Parlamento Europeo y del Consejo, de 4 de julio de 2012, relativo a la competencia, la ley aplicable, el reconocimiento y la ejecución de las resoluciones, a la aceptación y la ejecución de los documentos públicos en materia de sucesiones mortis causa y a la creación de un certificado sucesorio europeo ha venido a unificar las soluciones tan dispares de Derecho internacional privado que existían en el ámbito de la Unión Europea en materia sucesoria. Reconociendo el esfuerzo de los Estados miembros por coordinar la unificación de las normas de Derecho internacional privado en este área, su aplicación no está exenta de problemas con otras materias que afectan directamente a la regulación de la sucesión de una persona, como sucede, por ejemplo, con la regulación de los derechos reales que pueden afectar a los bienes de la masa hereditaria. Partiendo de que no existe una unificación de las normas de Derecho internacional privado en materia de transmisión de la propiedad de los bienes y de los derechos reales, en general, reconocidos por los distintos Estados miembros se pueden plantear muchos problemas teniendo en cuenta la existencia de un numerus clausus de derechos reales y los distintos sistemas de inscripción registral contemplados para la adquisición de tales derechos reales. Los artículos 1 y 23 del Reglamento sucesorio intentan solucionar este conflicto. Representan las dos caras de una misma moneda pues regulan el ámbito de aplicación de la lex successionis en sentido negativo y en sentido positivo, respectivamente. Por un lado, el artículo 1 recoge las cuestiones excluidas del ámbito de aplicación del Reglamento y, por otro lado, el artículo 23 recoge las cuestiones incluidas en su ámbito de aplicación. Sin embargo, la colisión se plantea en relación con la aplicación de la lex rei sitae a determinadas cuestiones sucesorias que están incluidas en el ámbito de aplicación de la lex succesionis a las que hay que aplicar cumulativamente la dos Leyes. Así, la Ley sucesoria regula la transmisión a los herederos, y en su caso, a los legatarios, de los bienes que integran la herencia, según recoge la letra e) del artículo 23.2, y las letras k) y l) del artículo 1.2, excluyen de la aplicación de la ley sucesoria la naturaleza de los derechos reales y cualquier inscripción de derechos sobre bienes muebles o inmuebles en un registro; cuestiones que, en la mayoría de los casos, quedan sometidas a la lex rei sitae o lex registrationis. Este conflicto de leyes es lo que ha provocado la primera decisión del TJUE sobre el Reglamento sucesorio: Sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia de la Unión Europea, Sala Segunda, de 12 de octubre de 2017: Kubicka.Palabras clave: Sucesión internacional, lex successionis, lex rei sitae, lex registrationis, ámbito de la ley aplicable, derechos reales, derechos de propiedad, legatum per vindicationem y per damnationem.Abstract: Regulation (EU) no. 650/2012 of the European Parliament and the Council of 4 July2012 on jurisdiction, applicable law, recognition and enforcement of decisions and acceptance and enforcement of authentic instruments in matters of succession and on the creation of a European Certificate of Succession is one of the most important results hitherto achieved for codifying private international law which the European Union. Recognizing the effort of the Member States to coordinate the unification of the rules of private international law in this area, its application is not exempt from problems with other areas that directly affect the regulation of the succession of a person, as happens for example with the regulation of property law that may affect the inheritance assets. Recognition of foreign property law may create problems in light of a Member State’s numerus clausus of property rights and differing land registration regimes. The study of the matters governed by the lex successionis, listed in article 23.2 ESR, must be done taking into account article 1.2 ESR, setting out the issues which are excluyed from the lex successionis scope. Often the exclusion or inclusion of particular matters from or within the scope of application of the lex successionis are two sides of the same coin. In other words, article 1.2 ESR governs the scope of application in a negative sense and article 23.2 ESR in a positive sense. However, the collision arises in relation to the application of the lex rei sitae to certain inheritance questions that are included in the scope of application of lex successionis to which the two Acts must be applied cumulatively. This is what happens with the regulation by lex successionis of the transfer to the heirs and, as the case may be, to the legatees of the assets, rights and obligations forming part of the estate, including the conditions and effects of the acceptance or waiver of the succession or of a legacy, according to letter e) of art. 23.2, bearing in mind that the letters k) and l) of art. 1.2, exclude from the application of the succession law the nature of rights in rem; and any recording in a register of rights in immovable or movable property, including the legal requirements for such recording, and the effects of recording or failing to record such rights in a register; issues that, in most cases, are subject to the lex rei sitae or lex registrationis. This conflict of laws is what led to the first decision of the CJEU on the Succession Regulation: Judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union, Second Chamber, of October 12, 2017: Kubicka.Keywords: International succession, lex successionis, lex rei sitae, lex registrationis, the scope of the aplicable law, rights in rem, property rights, legatum per vindicationem y per damnationem 


2019 ◽  
Vol 25 ◽  
pp. 43-65 ◽  
Author(s):  
Łukasz Żarnowiec

Since August 17, 2015 the courts of the Member States of the European Union apply the conflict-of-laws rules adopted in the EU Succession Regulation (EU) in succession matters. From the Polish point of view, this constitutes not only the change of the rules applied for the purposes of determining jurisdiction and the applicable law, but also a new approach to the overriding mandatory provisions. Contrary to other European instruments of private international law, the Succession Regulation neither uses the term “overriding mandatory provisions”, nor defines its meaning. Nevertheless, in Article 30 the Regulation provides for application — irrespective of the law applicable to the succession under its conflict rules — of the special rules of the State, where certain immovable property, enterprises or other special categories of assets are located, and which — for economic, family or social considerations — impose restrictions concerning or affecting the succession in respect of those assets, in so far as, under the law of that State, they are applicable irrespective of the law applicable to the succession. The interpretation of this provision cause difficulties. It is not clear whether the concept of the special provisions embodied in Article 30 refers to the concept of overriding mandatory rules, well known in the European private international law, or whether it constitutes an original solution. Another controversial issue discussed in the paper is the relevance of the mandatory rules of the forum or the third State other than those mentioned in Article 30.


2011 ◽  
Vol 29 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Behr Volker

The year 2009 was an important year in the development of unified private international law in the European Union. At the beginning of the year, Regulation (EC) No. 864/2007 on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (Rome II)  entered into force. And at the end of the year Regulation (EC) 593/2008 on the law applicable to contractual obligations (Rome I) followed suit. Hence, within one year significant parts of the private international law relevant to international business transactions have been unified within most of the Member States of the European Union. Further segments are to follow up on these developments.


2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (2) ◽  
pp. 81-96
Author(s):  
Łukasz Stępkowski

THE NOTION OF EFFECTIVENESS IN THE LAW OF THE EUROPEAN UNIONThe work submitted herein aims to address the question of effectiveness of EU law. Effectiveness of that law is subject to an ongoing controversy, as there is no agreement in legal literature either on the legal status of effectiveness or its use by the Court of Justice of the European Union. The author undertakes to outline the grounding of effectiveness in EU law in relation to both written law and jurisprudence of the Court. The work assumes the use of the descriptive approach in the legal doctrine, specifically the explanatory non-normative legal doctrine by A.R. Mackor. In this manner, this paper elects to present descriptive statements with extensive use of the Court’s case law as a feature to establish the content of applicable law. This work takes account of the law and jurisprudence as they were on 11th of October 2015.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document