JUDICIALIZAÇÃO DOS REQUERIMENTOS DE SALÁRIO MATERNIDADE DECAÍDOS EM DECORRÊNCIA DA MP871/2019

In this article we will discuss the judicialization of maternity wage requirements that fell due to MP871 / 2019. The adopted methodology is an applied, descriptive research, treating the subject in a quantitative way, through field research, news sites, articles, theses, statistical data from the National Social Security Institute (INSS) and other ways. Therefore, this article aims to analyze the judicialization of the cases reached by the amendment intended by Provisional Measure 871/2019, with regard to reducing the decadential term from 5 (five) years to 180 (one hundred and eighty) days for require the maternity wage, which is due to mothers after childbirth or adoption. In view of this, we can see how the reflexes of the aforementioned Provisional Measure have been of great importance and should be discussed, since at the time it causes damage it shows a setback in society.

Equity, Compensation, and Costs

Just as equitable considerations can inform a court or tribunal’s decision in the early phases of the adjudicatory process, so equity may have a role to play in fixing the amount of compensation, in allocating costs, and in deciding whether to grant security for costs. The chapter proceeds in two parts. First, it considers equity in the reasoning of international courts and tribunals leading to the award of compensation. Second, it studies the role of equity in decisions relating to costs in investment arbitration – notably in decisions on the apportionment of costs between the disputing parties and on security for costs, a provisional measure in whose application equitable considerations are noticeably prominent.

Provisional Security of Creditors in Cross-border Civil and Commercial Matters

Provisional measures can be of utmost importance to creditors especially in relationships with a cross-border element. The Regulation 1215/2012 is the legal source that provides rules regarding the jurisdiction to issue a provisional measure but also offers imperfect provisions regarding the recognition and enforcement of foreign provisional measures issued in the other Member States of the European Union. Due to the inadequate regulation, CJEU case law has played an important role, but nevertheless, the article finds and opens new questions that have not yet been answered.

THE KERCH STRAIT INCIDENT: IS THERE A BREACH OF INTERNATIONAL LAW?

On 23th November 2018, the Federal Security Service of the Russian Federation ("FSB") destroyed and captured three of Ukrainian Military Vessel, as well as detaining 24 of its personnels. As the dispute continues, Ukraine raised this matter to the International Tribunals on Law of The Sea (“ITLOS”), requesting a provisional measure pursuant to Article 280 paragraph 5 UNCLOS to release the vessels and personnels detained. ITLOS has made its order on 25th May 2019, ruling that Russia must release the detainee and return the vessels immediately to Ukraine. However, Russia refused to enforce the order and denied ITLOS jurisdiction over this matter due to the involvement of military aspect in the incident. Therefore, this paper provides an answer to the questions whether Russia’s act constitutes a violation to international law and whether ITLOS has the jurisdiction over the dispute.

La protección del crédito transfronterizo mediante la orden europea de retención de cuentas. En torno a la STJUE C-555/18 de 7 de noviembre de 2019 = The protection of the cross-border credit by the European Account Preservation Order. Regarding the ECJ Judgment C-555/18 Of 7 November of 2019

Resumen: La orden europea de retención de cuentas es una medida muy útil que intenta facilitar el cobro de las deudas transfronterizas. La sentencia del TJUE de 7 de noviembre de 2019 es la primera sentencia sobre el Reglamento 655/2014. Reglamento europeo que instaura esta medida cautelar europea en todos los Estados miembros de la UE a excepción de Dinamarca. Esta sentencia muestra que la aplicación de la orden europea de retención de cuentas puede no resultar fácil de aplicar a los tribunales nacionales. Una de las razones es que su aplicación requiere de una combinación armónica entre lo dispuesto en el Reglamento 655/2014 y los derechos procesales nacionales. El TJUE, con esta sentencia que analizamos, intenta allanar el camino hacia la búsqueda de esa aplicación armónica y sobre todo homogénea del R. 655/2014 por los tribunales nacionales de los Estados miembros.Palabras clave: medida cautelar, orden europea de retención de cuentas, deuda transfronteriza.Abstract: The European Account Preservation Order is a very useful measure that attempts to facilite the collection of cross-border debts. The ECJ judgment of 7 of November of 2019 is the first about the Regulation 655/2014. This Regulation establishes the European precautionary measure in all EU member states with the exception of Denmark. This ruling shows that the application of the European Account Preservation Order may not be easy to apply to national courts. One of the reasons is that its application requires a harmonious combination between the provisions of Regulation 655/2014 and national procedural orders. The ECJ with this judgment that we analyze tries to pave the way towards the search for that harmonious and especially homogeneous application of R. 655/2014 by the national courts of the member states. Keywords: provisional measure, European Account Preservation Order, cross-border debt.

Can harmonized time limits in European civil procedure enhance the effectiveness of the enforcement of EU Law? = Possono termini processuali armonizzati in materia civile incre-mentare l’ effettività nell’esecuzione del diritto dell’Unione Europea?

The article focuses on the judgment Al Bosco, rendered by the ECJ on 4th October 2018. Al Bosco gives a new insight as to how the ECJ interprets the following questions: firstly, it clarifies the relationship between the doctrine of extended effects and that of equivalent effects; secondly, it underlines the importance of the principle of legal certainty; finally, it addresses issues concerning the time limit for the enforcement of a provisional measure issued in a Member State other than the Member State in which enforcement is sought. Against such a background, I will examine the pos-sibility of introducing a uniform and autonomous concept of harmonized time limits within the EU.Keywords: Time limits, provisional measures, recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and com-mercial matters, civil judicial cooperation, harmonisation.Riassunto: lo scritto è di commento alla sentenza “Al Bosco”, pronunciata dalla CGUE il 4 ottobre 2018. L’arresto in parola si segnala per il quid novi introdotto dalla Corte di Lussemburgo sull’interpretazione di talune questioni: inizialmente, chiarifica il rapporto tra il principio di estensione dell’efficacia e quello di equivalenza degli effetti; sottolinea, quindi, la centralità del principio di legalità giuridica. Affronta, da ultimo, talune problematiche relative all’applicazione del termine per l’esecuzione di una misura cautelare (un sequestro conservativo) in un contesto transfrontaliero. La sentenza mi fornisce lo spunto per svolgere alcune brevi considerazioni circa l’opportunità di valutare l’introduzione di un concetto autonomo ed uniforme di termini processuali armonizzati all’interno dell’Unione Europea. Parole chiave: termini processuali, misure cautelari, riconoscimento ed esecuzione di decisioni in materia civile e commerciale, cooperazione giudiziale in materia civile, armonizzazione.