scholarly journals Competencia en la modificación por tribunales españoles de medidas relativas a alimentos establecidas por tribunales extranjeros. Comentario al Auto del Tribunal Supremo de 17 de septiembre de 2019 = Jurisdiction and ammendments by Spanish courts of measures relating to alimony established by foreign courts. A commentary to the order of the Spanish Supreme Court of September 17, 2019

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (1) ◽  
pp. 763
Author(s):  
María José Valverde Martínez

Resumen: La modificación por tribunales españoles de medidas acordadas por tribunales extran­jeros es un tema candente por la conjunción de instrumentos normativos de muy diferente índole (eu­ropeos, internacionales y nacionales) que han de ser interpretados de forma integrada con el fin de determinar la competencia del órgano jurisdiccional correspondiente. En este estudio se aborda el Auto del Tribunal Supremo de 17 de septiembre de 2019; resolución que resuelve un conflicto negativo de competencia suscitado entre dos tribunales españoles, los cuales declararon su falta de competencia territorial en relación a una demanda de modificación de medidas adoptadas en sentencia de divorcio previamente pronunciada por un juzgado de Rumanía. La modificación de medidas solicitada en la de­manda presentada ante los tribunales españoles concernía al importe de la pensión alimenticia de la hija menor de los cónyuges divorciados.Palabras clave: modificación de medidas, pensión de alimentos, divorcio, competencia inter­nacional, competencia territorial de tribunales españoles, conflicto negativo de competencia, Derecho Internacional Privado.Abstract: The modification by Spanish courts of measures granted by foreign courts is a difficult topic due to the combination of different regulatory instruments of a very diverse nature (European, international and national). All of them must be interpreted in an integrated manner in order to determi­ne the competence of a specific court. In this study, the Order of September 17, 2019 rendered by the Spanish Supreme Court is analyzed. The order solves a negative conflict of jurisdiction between two Spanish courts, which declared their lack of territorial jurisdiction with regard to a claim of modification of measures adopted in a divorce decree previously pronounced by a Romanian court. The modification of measures was requested before the Spanish courts and concerned the amount of the child support of the daughter of the divorced spouses.Keywords: modification of measures, child support, divorce, International Jurisdiction, territo­rial jurisdiction of Spanish courts, negative conflict of jurisdiction, Private International Law.

Author(s):  
V.C. Govindaraj

In deciding cases of private international law or conflict of laws, as it is widely known, judges of the Supreme Court in India generally consult the works of renowned English jurists like Dicey and Cheshire. This volume argues that our country should have its own system of resolving inter-territorial issues with cross-border implications. The author critically analyses cases covering areas such as the law of obligations, the law of persons, the law of property, foreign judgments, and foreign arbitral awards. The author provides his perspectives on the application of law in each case. The idea is to find out where the judges went wrong in deciding cases of private international law, so that corrective measures can be taken in future to resolve disputes involving complex, extra-territorial issues.


2014 ◽  
Vol 63 (1) ◽  
pp. 197-212 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Kenny

AbstractThe common law rules for recognition and enforcement of foreign judgments were radically reformulated by the Canadian Supreme Court in Beals v Saldanha. Few other common law jurisdictions have considered whether or not to follow Canada in this development in private International Law. In 2012, the Irish Supreme Court definitively rejected the Canadian approach. This note examines the judgment in that case, and assesses the reasoning of the Irish Court.


1975 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 515-568 ◽  
Author(s):  
Daniel Friedmann

It is not always easy to decide when we must turn to English law. And once it has been determined that reference to English law is appropriate, there is the further question of the substance and application of principles drawn from English law. In such case, English law forms part of the local law, and need not be ascertained as required by the rules of private international law in respect of foreign law.This makes the local law directly dependent upon English case-law, which itself is constantly being renewed and developed. Such dependence may seem to impair the independence of the Israeli legal system. The question could not, of course, be raised during the Mandatory period at a time when there existed a possibility of appeal from the Mandatory Supreme Court to the Privy Council in Westminster. But after the establishment of the State Cheshin J. said:It is unthinkable that a sovereign nation with its own laws and its own legal system would continue to be subject to the authority of a foreign nation's legal system and to changes in rulings which are likely to be introduced in her courts, only because in the past, when there was a strong tie between the two nations, the former drew from the legal system of the latter.


Author(s):  
Wendy A. Adams

SummaryThe distinction between formal and essential validity in Anglo-Canadian choice of law regarding marriage is an illogical bifurcation that unnecessarily invalidates same-sex relationships contracted in foreign jurisdictions. The Supreme Court of Canada has recently reformulated certain rules of private international law, taking into account both the constitutional and sub-constitutional imperatives inherent in a federal setting and the need for order and fairness when co-ordinating diversity in the face of increasing globalization. Reform of the choice of law rules regarding the validity of foreign marriages should proceed accordingly with the result being that a marriage valid where celebrated is valid everywhere. No principled reason exists to deny recognition to same-sex relationships validly contracted in other jurisdictions, nor to differentiate between the rights and obligations arising from the legal status of same-sex and different-sex relationships.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document