Does the European Court of Justice constitutionalise EU Private International Law?

2017 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-176
Author(s):  
Dominik Düsterhaus
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

scholarly journals Interactions between European Court of Human Rights and Private International Law of European Union = Interacciones entre el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y Derecho Internacional Privado de la Unión Europea

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (1) ◽  
pp. 248 ◽  
Author(s):  
Dimitris Liakopoulos
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Family Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Derechos Humanos ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
International Private Law ◽  
European Family

Abstract: The present work is concentrated on the analysis of the jurisprudence between the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice in the sector of private international law. In particular, it deals with the differences, similarities, influences, impact, etc. in the sector of family law, insolvency and succession according the Regulations and the private international law and last but not least the recognition of sentences by the European Member States.Keywords: European Court of Human Rights, International private law, European Court of Justice, European family law, insolvency, succession.Resumen: El presente trabajo se concentra en el análisis de la jurisprudencia entre el Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos y el Tribunal de Justicia Europeo en el sector del derecho internacional privado. En particular, aborda las diferencias, similitudes, influencias, impacto, etc., en el sector del derecho de familia, la insolvencia y la sucesión de acuerdo con el Reglamento y el Derecho internacional privado y, por último, el reconocimiento de condenas por parte de los Estados miembros europeos.Palabras clave: Tribunal Europeo de Derechos Humanos, Derecho Internacional Privado, Tribunal Europeo de Justicia, Derecho de Familia Europeo, insolvencia, sucesión.

scholarly journals Steigimosi laisvė po Cartesio bylos: ES inkorporavimo doktrinos trūkumas ir to padariniai

Teisė ◽  
2010 ◽  
Vol 75 ◽  
pp. 143-158
Author(s):  
Robertas Čiočys
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Freedom Of Establishment ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Real Seat

This article defines private international law doctrines of incorporation and real seat and then turns to the analysis of freedom of establishment guaranteed by the EC Treaty. The article analyses judgments of the European Court of Justice, interpreting the freedom of establishment in cases where companies tried to transfer their seats across frontiers, especially in light of the newest judgment in this area in the Cartesio case. The analysis of case law shows the link between the freedom of establishment and private international law doctrines. The article is concluded by a discussion of opportunities that free­dom of establishment provides for companies, alternatives for cross-border business restructurings and implications of rising number of these activities. Straipsnyje apibūdinamos tarptautinės privatinės teisės taikomos inkorporavimo ir buveinės doktri­nos ir tada analizuojama EB steigimo sutarties garantuojama steigimosi laisvė. Aptariama Europos Tei­singumo Teismo praktika interpretuojant steigimosi laisvę bylose, kai bendrovės bandė perkelti buveinę už valstybės ribų. Atsižvelgiant į tai, kaip supratimą keičia naujausia byla šioje srityje − Cartesio. Teis­mo praktikos analizė parodo steigimosi laisvės ir tarptautinės privatinės teisės doktrinų ryšį. Straipsnis baigiamas aptariant galimybes, kurias bendrovėms suteikia steigimosi laisvė, ir alternatyvas, kuriomis jos gali pasinaudoti, siekdamos pertvarkyti verslą, kai tai apima kelias valstybes, bei šio reiškinio dažnė­jimo padarinius.

scholarly journals Régimen económico matrimonial, derechos sucesorios del cónyuge supérstite y Certificado Sucesorio Europeo: ¿una combinanción explosiva? = Matrimonial property regimen, succession rights of the surviving spouse and European Certificate of Succession: an explosive

2018 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
pp. 769
Author(s):  
Isabel Antón Juárez
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Legal Problems ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
New Instrument ◽  
The Relationship ◽  
Property Regime ◽  
Sobre Todo

Resumen: El objeto del presente trabajo es el estudio de la STJUE de 1 de marzo de 2018, cono­cido como asunto Mahnkopf. Este asunto es interesante no sólo por lo que recoge el TJUE sino también por lo que calla. Esto es así porque este caso trae a colación problemas jurídicos de gran calado para el Derecho internacional privado como el problema de la calificación. Pero sobre todo pone sobre la mesa un aspecto que va a ser clave en el Derecho europeo de sucesiones y es la relación entre el Derecho suce­sorio y los aspectos relativos al régimen económico matrimonial y cómo estas cuestiones pueden quedar reflejadas en el nuevo instrumento creado por el Reglamento 650/2012, el certificado sucesorio europeo.Palabras clave: Derechos sucesorios, certificado sucesorio europeo, régimen económico matrimo­nial, Reglamento europeo de sucesiones.Abstract: The goal of this paper is to the Judgment of the European Court of Justice of 1 March 2018, Known as Mahnkopf affair. This case is interesting not only because of what the CJEU establishes but also because of what is silent. This is because this case brings up legal problems of great importance to private international law such as the problem of qualification. But above all, it puts on the table an aspect that will be key in European succession law. It is the relationship between succesion law and aspects related to the matrimonial property regime and how these elements can be reflected in the new instrument created by the Regulation 650/2012, the European Certificate of Succession.Keywords: Succesion rights of the surviving spouse, European certificate of succesion, matrimo­nial property regime, European succession regulation.

Once more unto the Breach: the Actio Pauliana is a Matter Relating to a Contract in EU Private International Law

2019 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 58-65
Author(s):  
Michiel Poesen
Keyword(s):  
At Risk ◽  
International Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Third Party ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Contractual Obligation ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Broad Interpretation ◽  
Insight Into

Abstract The decision of the European Court of Justice (‘ECJ’) in Feniks sp z o o v Azteca Products & Services SL provides further insight into the demarcation of the head of jurisdiction in matters relating to a contract, which is contained in the Brussels I Regulation Recast, Article 7(1). In particular, the decision characterises an avoidance action, a so-called actio pauliana, as a contractual matter. As a consequence, disputes that are based on such an action can be brought in the court of the place of performance of the contractual obligation the avoidance action aims to protect. This contribution will explain that while the decision of the ECJ is seemingly in line with recent precedents, it cannot be reconciled with the principle of predictability of jurisdiction, because the decision is based on an overly broad interpretation of the concept of ‘matters relating to a contract’. The ramification of the decision is that a third party that is somehow involved in the contractual dealings of others is at risk of being sued in the place of performance of a contract with which it has a too tenuous connection.

Party Autonomy in the Brussels I Regulation and Rome I Regulation and the European Court of Justice

2009 ◽  
Vol 10 (11) ◽  
pp. 1505-1524 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jan-Jaap Kuipers
Keyword(s):  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Brussels Convention ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
International Convention ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Rome Convention ◽  
The Status ◽  
Contractual Obligations ◽  
Rome I

The relationship between Community law and Private International Law (PIL) did not have an easy start. The original EEC Treaty merely made one reference to PIL. The notable exception was the Brussels Convention on Jurisdiction and Enforcement of Judgments in Civil and Commercial Matters (1968), an international convention concluded on the basis of art. 220 EEC (293 EC). The Rome Convention on the Law Applicable to Contractual Obligations (1980) did not even have an explicit legal basis. After the adoption of the Rome Convention it remained relatively silent on the Community level. It did not help that due to the status of international convention the European Court of Justice (ECJ) was deprived of any power of interpretation. The problem was resolved in two separate protocols. The protocol on the Brussels Convention entered into force in 1975 and the protocol on the Rome Convention only entered into force in 2004. Whereas there has been a substantial amount of case-law on the Brussels Convention, the ECJ only delivered its first judgment on the Rome Convention in October 2009.

The European Community, the European Court of Justice and the Law of the Sea

2008 ◽  
Vol 23 (4) ◽  
pp. 643-713 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sonja Boelaert-Suominen
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
European Community ◽  
Dispute Settlement ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Law Of The Sea ◽  
Member States ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
Fishery Policy ◽  
European Court ◽  
The Law

AbstractThe European Community has gradually increased its focus on marine and maritime affairs, starting with the Community's Fishery Policy in the 1970s and culminating recently in the 2007 Blue Book on an Integrated Maritime Policy of the European Union. The Community's increased clout over marine and maritime matters has been reflected also in the case law of the European Court of Justice. From the outset the Court has given great impetus to the Community's efforts to assert its external competence in matters related to fisheries and conservation of biological resources of the sea. Even so, the Court has thus far only occasionally been confronted with public international law questions pertaining to the law of the sea. However, the few cases in which the Court has addressed such issues are worthy of note. For example, the Court has ruled on whether Member States should be allowed to rely on the international law of the sea in order to derogate from obligations under Community law; whether Member States should be allowed to prefer the dispute settlement provisions set out in the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea over the Community's own dispute settlement system; and on whether private parties may invoke arguments derived from the customary or conventional international law of the sea to challenge the validity of Community legislation pertaining to marine and maritime matters. The resulting judgments of the European Court of Justice have often turned out to be landmark cases, although some of them have tended to divide academic opinion.

scholarly journals (In)certezze giuridiche sulla situazione della Crimea: una «mappa» dei casi pendenti o decisi davanti alle corti europee

2019 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sara De Vido
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
International Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Current Situation ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court

The purpose of this chapter is to analyse the case of Crimea from an international law perspective, by reflecting on the numerous pending cases in front of the European Court of Human Rights and on two cases decided by the European Court of Justice. The chapter will not take a position on the legitimacy or not of the facts that led to the current situation. It will rather focus on the current de facto situation, case law, and on two pivotal notions in international law: sovereignty and jurisdiction.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document