Standards und Abgrenzungen im internationalen Familienrecht

2019 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Federal Court ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Personality Rights ◽  
Matrimonial Property Law ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
Legal Consequences

The second ‘Dialog Internationales Familienrecht’, a conference on international family law, was held in Marburg in May 2019. Under the heading ‘Standards and Delimitations in International Family Law’, academics and practitioners dealt with benchmarks and classification issues that are currently under discussion in international family law. The conference focused on international family procedural law and international matrimonial property law. This publication is a collection of the lectures held at the conference. The contributions deal, inter alia, with the interests of children in family proceedings, situations of conflict in proceedings dealing with the legal consequences of divorce, the amendment of the Brussels IIbis Regulation as well as the new EU regulations on matrimonial property regimes. The publication is rounded off by an overview of the Federal Court of Justice's case law on international family law, as well as with deliberations on the violation of the personality rights of children on social networks and on the protection of adults in cross-border constellations.

scholarly journals KILKA UWAG O BADANIACH NAD ROMANIZACJĄ STATUTÓW LITEWSKICH

2017 ◽  
Vol 2 (2) ◽  
pp. 71
Author(s):  
Sławomir Godek
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Roman Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
The Third ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
Fertile Ground ◽  
The Subject ◽  
Law Of Succession ◽  
Made In

SOME REMARKS ON THE STUDY OF THE ROMANIZATION OF LITHUANIAN STATUTESSummary The article is dedicated to the issues connected with the reception of Roman Law in the Lithuanian statutes of 1529, 1566, and 1588. After an analysis of the existing scholarly accomplishments in the field, one cannot but conclude that the study of the influence of the Roman Law on Lithuanian codifications has hardly been started yet. Despite the fairly long tradition of research in this field, so far only selected elements of the first and second statutes have been analyzed in order to identify Roman constituents. The research carried out in 1930s by Raphael Taubenschlag, Franciszek Bossowski, and Karol Koranyi demonstrated which Roman Law noticeably influenced the statutory regulations pertaining to family law, law of property, law of succession, criminal and procedural law. Their observations partly confirmed the findings previously made in the nineteenth century by Aleksander Mickiewicz, Franciszek Morze, and Ignacy Daniłowicz. At the same time, nothing is still known about the scope of Romanization in the third Lithuanian statute or about the transformations which Roman elements underwent in each of the statutes. Without further study of the subject, one cannot assess the role of Roman law in the Commonwealth (Rzeczpospolita).It seems that the most fertile ground for identification of Roman elements in the third Lithuanian statute is tutorship and succession law, especially testamentary succession. Some interesting and original observations could be made on the basis of a more thorough comparative analysis of the pertinent Roman and Lithuanian regulations.

Current Issues of Deciding Cross-border Succession Matters in the Slovak Republic

2019 ◽  
pp. 179-195
Author(s):  
Elena Júdová
Keyword(s):  
Common Property ◽  
Slovak Republic ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
The European Union ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Common ◽  
Property Regimes

The European Regulation no 650/2012 unified the determination of jurisdiction and applicable law in succession matters in the Member States of the European Union. At the same time, it underlined other issues that complicate decision making on cross-border succession in the Slovak Republic. One of the most striking is the resolution of the issue of settling the common property of spouses, which under Slovak procedural law, is exercised by a notary in succession proceedings. The Slovak Republic does not participate at the enhanced cooperation on cross-border matrimonial property regimes, so joining jurisdiction in these cases with succession proceedings is very complicated. The present article deals with this and some other issues which the fragmentation of EU private international law brings.

scholarly journals Odlučivanje o imovinskim odnosima bračnih drugova u ostavinskim postupcima sukladno Uredbi 2016/1103 o bračnoimovinskom režimu

2017 ◽  
Vol 38 (1) ◽  
pp. 449-471
Author(s):  
Paula Poretti
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Member States ◽  
Applicable Law ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
International Couples ◽  
Recognition And Enforcement ◽  
Council Regulation ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
European Family ◽  
Open Issues

Council Regulation (EU) 2016/1103 of 24 June 2016 implementing enhanced cooperation in the area of jurisdiction, applicable law and the recognition and enforcement of decisions in matters of matrimonial property regimes (hereinafter: Regulation 2016/1103) provides for uniform rules which should facilitate delivering of judgments concerning matrimonial property in cross-border disputes in 18 Member States which established enhanced cooperation between themselves in the area of the property regimes of international couples. The application of the Regulation 2016/1103 should contribue to the application of other european instruments in the fi eld of european family law in divorce and succession proceedings. The paper presents rules on jurisdiction and applicable law under the Regulation 2016/1103 which should be applied in proceedings concerning matrimonial property regimes. Application of the provisions of Regulation 2016/1103 on jurisdiction and applicable law in proceedings for succession will be analyzed. The paper elaborates on certain potentially problematic solutions and open issues revealed through interpretation of provisions of Regulation 2016/1103 which could cause doubts and uncertainties for the court and public notaries. Possible solutions which could remove diffi culties and insuffi ciencies in the application of the Regulation 2016/1103 will be suggested.

Cross-border Family Issues in the EU: Multiplicity of Instruments, Inconsistencies and Problems of Coordination

2019 ◽  
pp. 65-82
Author(s):  
Rosario Espinosa Calabuig
Keyword(s):  
International Law ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Private International Law ◽  
Legal Professionals ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
National Courts ◽  
Family Issues ◽  
The Family ◽  
The Eu

This chapter analyses challenges in the family law sphere, examining EU case law to assess the success of EU private international law regulations in the fields of divorce, matrimonial property, maintenance obligations and cross-border rights of access to children. It points to the difficulties facing judges, national courts and legal professionals in the application of EU regulations in this sphere.

scholarly journals The interplay between jurisdictional rules established in the EU legal instruments in the field of family law: testing functionality through simultaneous application with domestic law = L’interazione tra le regole di giurisdizione all’interno degli strumenti giuridici dell’UE nell’ambito del diritto di famiglia: la prova del funzionamento attraverso l’applicazione simultanea del diritto nazionale

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (2) ◽  
pp. 551
Author(s):  
Lenka Válková
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Case Law ◽  
State Courts ◽  
Parental Responsibility ◽  
Simultaneous Application ◽  
Sono Stati ◽  
Domestic Law ◽  
Property Regimes ◽  
Property Regime ◽  
The Eu

Abstract: The following article aims at testing the interrelations between the rules on: jurisdiction in divorce and parental responsibility laid down in the Brussels IIa Regulation, maintenance laid down in the Maintenance Regulation, and property regime laid down in the Regulation on Matrimonial Property Regimes and on Property Consequences of Registered Partnerships, considering a number of potentially seised Member State courts and their interactions with domestic law. For the testing, the national legal system and case law of Slovakia and Czech Republic, which require hearing of a dispute in unique proceedings (with certain differences), has been selected in order to tackle problems connected with the simultaneous application of rules established by the EU regulations and domestic procedural rules.Keywords: Multiplicity of Regulations in Family Matters, Interplay between Jurisdictional Rules, Divorce, Parental Responsibility, Maintenance, Matrimonial Property Regimes, Czech and Slovak Legislation.Riassunto: Il presente contributo mira a verificare l’interazione tra le norme sulla competenza in materia di divorzio e responsabilità genitoriale stabilite dal Regolamento Bruxelles IIa, in materia di obbligazioni alimentari previste nel Regolamento sulle Obbligazioni Alimentari, e in materia di regimi patrimoniali previsti dai Regolamenti in Materia di Regimi Patrimoniali fra Coniugi e di Effetti Patrimoniali delle Unioni Registrate, prendendo in considerazione le Corti degli Stati Membri potenzialmente adite e la loro interazione con il diritto interno. Al fine di testare il funzionamento e affrontare i problema legati all’applicazione simultanea delle norme stabilite dal diritto dell’UE e delle norme procedurali nazionali, sono stati scelti i sistemi giuridici della Slovacchia e della Repubblica ceca, che richiedono, con alcune differenze, l’audizione di una controversia in un unico processo.Parole chiave: molteplicità dei regolamenti in diritto di familia, interazione tra le norme sulla competenza, divorzio, responsabilità genitoriale, obbligazioni alimentari, regime patrimoniale, legislazione ceca e slovacca.

Neue Impulse im europäischen Familienkollisionsrecht

2021 ◽  
Keyword(s):  
Family Law ◽  
Focal Points ◽  
Border Enforcement ◽  
Child Abduction ◽  
The Third ◽  
General Theme ◽  
Cross Border ◽  
Procedural Law ◽  
The Status ◽  
European Family

The third ‘Dialog Internationales Familienrecht’, a conference on international family law, was held in April 2021. Under the general theme ‘New Dynamics in European International Family Law‘, academics and practitioners dealt with the latest developments in European family law and family procedural law. In addition to focal points in child and maintenance law, the focus was placed on the new Brussels IIbis Regulation. The publication is a collection of the lectures held at the conference. The contributions deal with, inter alia, the cross-border enforcement of rights of access, consensual solutions in child abduction, the recognition of matters relating to the status of individuals, international maintenance law, and the consequences of the ECJ’s Mahnkopf decision. With contributions by Jennifer Antomo, Martina Erb-Klünemann, Wolfgang Hau, Frank Klinkhammer, Robert Magnus, Rembert Süß and Karsten Thorn.

The Best Interests of the Child

2020 ◽  
pp. 203-221
Author(s):  
Wouter Vandenhole ◽  
Gamze Erdem Türkelli
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Family Law ◽  
Children's Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Children’S Rights ◽  
Best Interests ◽  
Rights Of The Child ◽  
European Court ◽  
Elusive Concept

The best interests of the child principle is considered a pillar of children’s rights law and, according to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (CRC), is to be a primary consideration in all actions concerning children. Yet best interests is an elusive concept and principle that has no single authoritative definition or description. Internationally and domestically relevant in such diverse areas as family law, adoption, migration, and socioeconomic policymaking, the best interests principle requires flexibility and is best served by a case-by-case approach, as has been recognized by the UN Committee on the Rights of the Child and the European Court of Human Rights. This chapter analyzes relevant international case law and suggests the use of a number of safeguards to prevent such requisite flexibility from presenting a danger of paternalism, bias, or misuse.

Property

2020 ◽  
pp. 276-292
Author(s):  
J. E. Penner
Keyword(s):  
Property Rights ◽  
Case Law ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Private Law ◽  
Making Sense ◽  
The Social ◽  
Bundle Of Rights ◽  
High Level

This chapter discusses property law. It considers the idea that property had a “nominalist” ontology, and it was in danger of “disintegration” as a working legal category for that very reason. Nominalism about property has had a significant impact in U.S. case law. The concern here, however, is whether it is a helpful stance to take as a theorist of property. The chapter argues that it is not. There are indeed “high” level abstractions about property which one cannot plausibly do without if one is to understand property rights and property law doctrine. Moreover, the “bundle of rights” (BOR) challenge does not assist one in making sense of these abstractions. The chapter then looks at the conceptual failure of BOR and the New Private Law as it relates to property. BOR is generally regarded as being underpinned by what might be called the Hohfeld-Honoré synthesis. The synthesis rests upon a fairly serious mistake, which is that while the Hohfeldian examination of jural norms is analytic if it is anything, Honor’s elaboration of the incidents making up ownership is anything but—it is functional. This means that Honoré describes the situation of the owner not principally in terms of his Hohfeldian powers, duties, and rights vis-à-vis others, but in terms of the social or economic advantages that an owner has by virtue of his position, and the terms and limitations of those advantages.

Property and Expropriation: Two Concepts Revisited in the Light of the Case Law of the European Court of Human Rights and the European Court of Justice

2019 ◽  
Vol 8 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-191
Author(s):  
Sabrina Praduroux
Keyword(s):  
Human Rights ◽  
Property Rights ◽  
Economic Value ◽  
Case Law ◽  
European Court Of Justice ◽  
Property Law ◽  
Court Of Justice ◽  
European Court ◽  
Key Concepts ◽  
Domestic Law

Abstract In the late 1950 s René Savatier foretold that the qualification of economic value itself as property (bien) would have been the ultimate evolution of the theory of property rights. This prediction has come true with regard to the case law of the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) and the European Court of Justice (CJEU). This paper investigates the implications of the understanding of property developed by the two European Courts on the concept of expropriation itself as well as for the principles governing expropriation law. Hence, the paper illustrates the role played by both the ECtHR and the CJEU in laying down the parameters of legitimacy for national law, including property law. Within this context, the focus falls on cases in which the Courts characterize the facts as deprivation of property requiring for compensation, even though the relevant property could not be the object of expropriation under the domestic law of the defendant State. My contribution brings new insights into the current transformation of the traditional property categories and suggests the reinterpretation of some key concepts of expropriation law.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document