Rezolutia Consiliului din 23 octombrie 2009 privind o strategie consolidata pentru cooperarea vamala
JO 30.10.2009, C 260/1 {*}
Audiolux, C-101/08:
Dreptul comunitar nu cuprinde un principiu general de drept conform căruia actionarii minoritari sunt protejati prin obligatia actionarului dominant care achizitionează sau exercită controlul unei societăti de a oferi acestora posibilitatea de a le cumpăra actiunile în aceleasi conditii precum cele convenite la achizitionarea unei participatii care conferă sau consolidează controlul actionarului dominant.
[*]
Directiva 2009/101/CE A PARLAMENTULUI EUROPEAN sI A CONSILIULUI din 16 septembrie 2009 de coordonare, în vederea echivalării, a garantiilor impuse societătilor în statele membre, în întelesul articolului 48 al doilea paragraf din tratat, pentru protejarea intereselor asociatilor sau tertilor, JO 01.10.2009, L 258/11.
[*]
Pentru a marturisi deschis, suprinderea ne-a fost moderata (cf. si “nu mica ne-a fost surprinderea” etc.), constatand patrunderea pe sest a cunoscutului cuvant “locatzie” (sic!) - nu, nu in sensul cunoscut din dreptul civil – ci in sensul “tinerilor nostri”, in dreptul comunitar, varianta oficiala…
Este vorba despre Directiva 2006/24, aceea cu pastrarea datelor din comunicatii electronice; incercati, de exemplu, art. 5 alin. (1) lit. f)…
Textul actului, in limba neo-vernaculara, e de ragasit & de cules de aici.
de data aceasta la francezi.
Asadar, din acest raport se poate observa cu usurinta cat de interesanta va fi pentru Romania presedintia UE.
Yasuhiro Shigeta, The ECJ’s ‘Hard’ Control over Compliance with International Environmental Law: Its Procedural and Substantive Aspects, International Community Law Review, Volume 11, Number 3, September 2009, pp. 251-305.
This study shows that the ECJ, while not directly applying and interpreting environmental treaties, exercises procedurally and substantively ‘hard’ control over compliance with EC legislation implementing those treaties, in the fields of nature conservation and hazardous waste management, on certain conditions and within certain limits. This study also shows that the ECJ’s acknowledgment of its exclusive jurisdiction on the marine environment as seen in the 2006 MOX Plant case has contradictory effect on its substantively ‘hard’ control: such acknowledgment, although being a plus factor where there is no Community measure, becomes a minus factor since it in practice means that there already exist Community measures. Although the above observations are also instructive to other international judiciaries’ study, structural and situational differences should be considered.
Chris Koedooder, Niki de Lang, Anti-terrorist Blacklisting in the European Union: The Influence of National Procedures on the Judgments of the Court of First Instance of the European Communities, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, vol. 36, 4/2009, pp. 313–337
Summary:
The most prominent example of anti-terrorism measures is undoubtedly the freezing of funds of individuals or entities suspected of committing or supporting terrorist acts. The European Union (EU) implements United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolutions and maintains its own anti-terrorist blacklist. This article looks at fund-freezing decisions taken on the basis of both the UN sanctions regime and the autonomous EU sanctions regime and the resulting jurisprudence of the Community courts. Discussion of recent judgments of the Court of First Instance (CFI) in the Sison and OMPI cases, both concerning EU level sanctions, will illustrate that the underlying national procedures can have considerable influence on the Court’s judgments in this field. Central to the discussion will be the relevance of national procedures and judgments on the validity of blacklisting decisions and their review.
Giacomo Gattinara, The Relevance of WTO Dispute Settlement Decisions in the US Legal Order, Legal Issues of Economic Integration, Vol. 36, 4/2009, pp. 285–312
This article addresses the issue of the relevance of World Trade Organization (WTO) adopted reports in the US legal order with specific attention paid to the role of the judiciary. Far from being limited to the issue of direct effect, the analysis here is an attempt to look at how the US judiciary takes into account these adopted reports, also considering other softer effects, such as their persuasive authority and interpretative significance, which are thoroughly examined in light of the Charming Betsy doctrine. The conclusion is that in US judicial venues, WTO adopted reports are not totally neglected and that, if due account is taken of the case law of North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Chapter 19 binational panels, they are granted an ever more solid indirect effect. This judicial trend is analysed also in light of the somehow similar evolution that took place in the recent case law of the European Community Courts.
Oliver Gutman, Cartesio Oktato es Szolgaltato bt: the ECJ gives its blessing to corporate exit taxes, British Tax Review, 2009. Iss. 4.
Abstract (Summary)
In the Cartesio Oktato es Szolgaltato bt case, the European Court of Justice held that Article 43 did not preclude the Hungarian rules. The judgment is a re-affirmation of the limits of Article 43 when applies to companies. A preliminary, national test of establishment is interposed, which does not apply to individuals. The judgment in the case makes the rather tenuous claim that Member States’ freedom to determine if a company is established for the purposes of Article 43 does not take a significant part of Member States’ company law outside the scope of the Treaty. There is no tension between Cartesio and the ECJ judgments condemning exit taxes for individuals. The factor that distinguishes companies from individuals – that companies do not enjoy freedom of establishment until they meet particular national requirements – is the crux of the judgment in the case.
Centrul de Studii de Drept European (CSDE) al Institutului de Cercetări Juridice din cadrul Academiei Române organizează la data de la data de 30 octombrie 2009, ora 12,30
la Universitatea Romano-Americana, Bld. Expozitiei, nr. 1B, Amfiteatrul Jean Monnet
Conferinţa
«Legea aplicabilă obligaţiilor contractuale conform Regulamentului (CE) nr. 593/2008 al Parlamentului European şi al Consiliului din 17 iunie 2008 (Regulamentul ROMA I)»
Program. UPDATING…
Moderator: Nicolae Turcu, Preşedintele Secţiei de Drept Privat, Consiliul Legislativ din România
Alina Oprea, Regulamentul Roma I şi regimul juridic al normelor imperative
Viviana Onaca, Ioana Burduf, Cauza C-133/08, hotărâre din 6 octombrie 2009 (ICF): prima aplicare a Conventiei de la Roma privind legea aplicabila obligatiilor contractuale
Angela Mîţă-Baciu, Noua reglementare în domeniul legii aplicabile contractelor în Europa şi în statele membre ale UE [New regulation on the applicable law for contracts in Europe and EU Member States]
Bogdan Trandafirescu, Libertatea părţilor în determinarea legii aplicabile contractului de comerţ internaţional din perspectiva Regulamentului Roma I
Anca Melinte, Silvia Axinescu, Legislatia aplicabilă în cadrul contractelor electronice
Anca Ileana Duşcă, Robert Bischin, Unificarea dreptului contractelor – şi rolul ei – în dezvoltarea economiei europene
Dezbaterea îşi propune realizarea unui schimb de puncte de vedere atât din perspectiva teoreticienilor, cât şi practicienilor (judecători şi avocaţi), pornind de la aspecte cheie evidenţiate în jurisprudenţa Curţii de Justiţie a Comunităţilor Europene şi în dreptul derivat comunitar.
Lucrările şi prezentările susţinute cu ocazia colocviului urmează a fi publicate într-un volum, care va apărea la o editură recunoscută de CNCSIS.
Confirmarea participării se face prin e-mail (mihai.sandru@csde.ro) până la data de 29 octombrie 2009. Solicitanţii sunt rugaţi să menţioneze: numele şi prenumele, afilierea instituţională şi funcţia, precum şi domeniul de interes în materia dreptului european.
Informaţii suplimentare şi materiale referitoare la conferinta sunt disponibile la adresa eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com
Este încurajată participarea la lucrările colocviului cu prezentări vizând subiectele enumerate anterior dar şi altele referitoare la probleme conexe ce ar putea fi de interes.
Partener media principal: www.juridice.ro
Parteneri:
SSJ – Societatea de Studii Juridice
Revista Forumul Judecatorilor
Editura Universitară
Editura Wolters Kluwer
Editura Hamangiu
Editura C.H.Beck
Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.
* * *
Documente referitoare la această conferinţă vor fi disponibile la adresa web
http://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/
Nu se percepte taxă de participare. Locurile sunt limitate, înscrierea participanţilor realizându-se în ordinea cronologică a confirmarilor. Sunt aşteptate propuneri de sponsorizare a evenimentului.
Jan Kleinheisterkamp, Internationally Mandatory Rules and Arbitration, Rabels Zeitschrift, Vol. 73, No. 4, October 2009
This article treats the impact that internationally mandatory rules of the forum state may have on the effectiveness of arbitration agreements if the claims are based on such internationally mandatory rules but the parties had submitted their contract to a foreign law. The specific problems of conflicts of economic regulation are illustrated and discussed on the basis of Belgian and German court decisions on disputes relating to commercial distribution and agency agreements. European courts have adopted a restrictive practice of denying the efficacy of such tandems of choice-of-law and arbitration clauses if there is a strong probability that their internationally mandatory rules will not be applied in foreign procedures. This article shows that neither this approach nor the much more pro-arbitration biased solutions proposed by critics are convincing. It elaborates a third solution which allows national courts both to reconcile their legislator’s intention to enforce a given public policy with the parties’ original intention to arbitrate and to optimize the effectiveness of public interests as well as that of arbitration.
Friedrich Wenzel Bulst, The Application of Art. 82 EC to Abusive Exclusionary Conduct, Rabels Zeitschrift, Vol. 73, No. 4, October 2009 [*]
The article addresses recent developments in the application of the prohibition of abuse of dominance in EC competition law. The European Commission has published a communication providing guidance on its enforcement priorities in applying Art. 82 EC to abusive exclusionary conduct of dominant undertakings. Under this more effects-based approach which focuses on ensuring consistency in the application of Arts. 81 and 82 EC as well as the Merger Regulation, priority will be given to cases where the conduct in question is liable to have harmful effects on consumers. After a brief introduction (section I), the author outlines the main elements of the communication and illustrates how the Commission’s approach to providing guidance in this area has evolved since the publication of its 2005 discussion paper on exclusionary abuses (section II). The author then addresses the scope of the communication against the background of the case law on the Commission’s discretion (not) to pursue cases (section III). The central concept of the communication is that of »foreclosure leading to consumer harm«. Against this background the author discusses, in the context of refusal to supply abuses both in and outside an IP context, the operationalisation of the criterion of harm to consumers (section IV) before concluding (section V).
Anatol Dutta, The Death of the Shareholder in the Conflict of Laws, Rabels Zeitschrift, Vol. 73, No. 4, October 2009
Abstract:
The death of the shareholder raises the question how the law applicable to the company and the law governing the succession in the deceased shareholder’s estate have to be delimitated. This borderline becomes more and more relevant against the background of recent jurisprudence of the European Court of Justice (ECJ) in Centros, Überseering and Inspire Art concerning the freedom of movement of companies in the Community. On the one hand, as a consequence of this jurisprudence the laws governing the company and the succession often differ. On the other hand, the ECJ’s jurisprudence might further blur the boundaries between the laws governing companies and successions. The article tries to draw the border between the relevant choice-of-law rules. It comes to the conclusion that the consequences of the shareholder’s death for the company and his share are subject to the conflict rules for companies (supra III.). More problematic, though, is the characterisation of the succession in the share of the deceased shareholder. Some legal systems contain special succession regimes for shares in certain private companies and partnerships. The article argues (supra IV.) that the succession in shares has to be dually-characterised and subjected to both, the law governing the company and the succession. Yet clashes between the applicable company and succession laws are to be solved by giving precedence to the applicable company law. The precedence of company law should be clarified by the legislator – by the German legislator when codifying the conflict rules for companies and by the European legislator when codifying the conflict rules for successions upon death (supra V.).
preluat de pe CONFLICTOFLAWS.NET
Rabels Zeitschrift fuer auslaendisches und internationales Privatrecht [4/2009]
Hachette Filipacchi Associés (“Ici Paris”) c/ France, requête n° 12268/03.
Droit à la liberté d’expression (article 10 de la Convention de sauvegarde des droit de l’homme et des libertés fondamentales)
Dans l’affaire Hachette Filipacchi Associés (“Ici Paris”) c/ France, requête n° 12268/03, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme, le 23 juillet 2009, retient à l’unanimité la violation de l’article 10 de la Convention (droit à la liberté d’expression).
La Cour est appelée à se prononcer sur la compatibilité avec le droit à la liberté d’expression de la condamnation d’une société de presse au paiement de dommages-intérêts, après la publication de photographies à visée publicitaire d’un chanteur célèbre, illustrant un article critiquant le train de vie de la vedette et laissant entendre qu’il avait des difficultés financières : les juridictions nationales avaient jugé que l’article et les photographies avaient porté atteinte à la vie privée et au droit à l’image de l’intéressé, sur le fondement de l’article 9 du code civil.
Faits :
Le 13 novembre 1996, la requérante, la société de presse Hachette Filipacchi Associés, publia, dans son magazine hebdomadaire Ici Paris, en pages 14 et 15, un article intitulé : “Et s’il faisait un « bide » à Las Vegas ? Johnny l’angoisse !”, illustré de quatre photographies du chanteur populaire Johnny X…, l’une le représentant sur scène et les autres, à caractère publicitaire, vantant des produits pour lesquels il avait autorisé l’usage de son nom et de son image. Le chanteur assigna la société requérante, critiquant un usage non autorisé de ses photographies (atteinte à son droit à l’image), et faisant valoir, sur le même fondement de l’article 9 du code civil, qu’en le présentant comme presque ruiné et en faisant état de ses goûts dispendieux, l’article en cause violait son droit au respect de sa vie privée et portait atteinte à sa réputation.
Le tribunal de grande instance de Paris puis la cour d’appel rejetèrent sa requête, au motif que le magazine avait fait mention d’éléments connus du patrimoine et du mode de vie du chanteur, dont lui-même avait fait état à de nombreuses reprises, et que le ton de l’article ne révélait pas d’intention de nuire.
Par un arrêt du 30 mai 2000, la Cour de cassation cassa et annula en toutes ses dispositions l’arrêt du 6 mars 1998. La haute juridiction, au visa de l’article 9, alinéa premier, du code civil, estima que cette disposition avait été violée aux motifs que « la publication des photographies ne respectait pas la finalité visée dans l’autorisation donnée par l’intéressé », et que « les informations publiées portaient non seulement sur la situation de fortune mais aussi sur le mode de vie et la personnalité de M. X…, sans que leur révélation antérieure par l’intéressé soit de nature à en justifier la publication ».
La cour d’appel de renvoi, par un arrêt du 9 octobre 2002, jugea la société requérante coupable d’une atteinte portée à l’image et au droit au respect de la vie privée du chanteur et la condamna au paiement de 20 000 euros à titre de dommages-intérêts, ainsi qu’à 3 000 euros au titre des frais irrépétibles. La Cour de cassation rejeta définitivement le pourvoi en cassation de la société requérante.
Grief :
La société requérante allègue que sa condamnation a porté atteinte à son droit à la liberté d’expression au sens de l’article 10 de la Convention.
Décision :
Sur l’article 10 de la Convention :
Dans un premier temps, la Cour européenne écarte l’argument du gouvernement selon lequel le litige se situerait sur un plan strictement privé et échapperait à tout contrôle direct ou indirect de l’Etat. La condamnation litigieuse constitue, aux yeux des juges de Strasbourg, une ingérence de l’autorité publique dans le droit à la liberté d’expression de la société requérante.
Dans un second temps, la Cour vérifie si cette “ingérence de l’autorité publique” remplit les exigences du paragraphe 2 de l’article 10 : être prévue par la loi, poursuivre un but légitime, être proportionnée à ce but légitime.
Elle rappelle qu’elle a déjà jugé que le concept du “droit à l’image”, issu de celui du “droit à la vie privée”, résultait d’une interprétation jurisprudentielle française bien établie de l’article 9 du code civil. L’ingérence critiquée était donc bien “prévue par la loi”, au sens de l’article 10 § 2 de la Convention.
Ensuite, concernant le but poursuivi, la Cour considère que l’ingérence avait pour but la protection “des droits d’autrui”, en l’occurrence le droit au respect de l’image et de la vie privée du chanteur.
Enfin, la Cour doit analyser si l’ingérence est “nécessaire dans une société démocratique”.
S’agissant du caractère plus ou moins strict de son contrôle de proportionnalité, la Cour européenne des droits de l’homme énonce sa jurisprudence fondée sur la distinction entre questions relevant ou non d’un débat d’intérêt général en ces termes :
“si l’article 10 § 2 de la Convention ne laisse guère de place pour des restrictions à la liberté d’expression dans le domaine, en particulier, du discours politique (X… c/ France, requête n° 71343/01, §§ 39-41, 11 avril 2006) et, de façon plus large, dans des domaines portant sur des questions d’intérêt public ou général, il en est différemment des publications de la presse dite « à sensation » ou « de la presse du cœur », laquelle a habituellement pour objet de satisfaire la curiosité d’un certain public sur les détails de la vie strictement privée d’une personne” (§ 40).
Selon elle, et contrairement aux dires de la société requérante, “l’article litigieux et les photos l’accompagnant [...] ne peuvent être considérés comme ayant participé ou contribué à un « débat d’intérêt général » pour la collectivité, au sens donné par la jurisprudence de la Cour. Dans ces conditions, la marge d’appréciation de l’Etat défendeur est plus large” (§ 43).
- Sur le droit à l’image :
La Cour rappelle que la protection du droit à l’image contre les abus de la part de tiers fait partie intégrante des droits protégés par l’article 8 de la Convention. A cet égard, elle conçoit que “le détournement ou l’utilisation abusive d’une photographie, pour laquelle une personne avait autorisé sa reproduction dans un but précis, puisse être considéré comme un motif pertinent pour restreindre la liberté d’expression” (§ 46).
Cependant, elle souligne le caractère exclusivement publicitaire des photographies en cause, ce qui distingue cette affaire de jurisprudences européennes antérieures, comme l’affaire X… c/ Allemagne, requête n° 59320/00, arrêt du 24 juin 2004, dans lesquelles les photographies litigieuses relevaient de procédés clandestins ou litigieux.
- sur l’atteinte à la vie privée et à la réputation :
Selon la Cour, les informations publiées portant sur le mode de vie du chanteur et sur sa personnalité “ne relevaient pas du cercle intime de la vie privée protégée” et, surtout, avaient été révélées antérieurement par le chanteur lui-même. Ce dernier ne pouvait donc prétendre au même degré de protection de sa vie privée, s’agissant désormais de faits notoires et d’actualité. La Cour souligne que les juridictions françaises auraient dû prendre en compte ce critère dans l’appréciation de la faute reprochée à la société requérante, et pas seulement au stade de l’évaluation de la réparation allouée.
“De l’avis de la Cour, c’est pourtant là un critère déterminant dans l’appréciation de l’équilibre à ménager entre le droit de la requérante à la liberté d’expression et celui du chanteur au respect de sa vie privée” (§ 53).
Enfin, la Cour juge que l’article ne contient aucune information de nature offensante ou nuisible. Elle considère que la société requérante n’avait pas dépassé les limites attachées à l’exercice de la liberté journalistique dans une société démocratique.
La Cour n’estime pas indispensable, dans ces conditions, d’examiner la nature et le quantum de la condamnation infligée pour mesurer la proportionnalité de l’ingérence.
Elle conclut à l’unanimité à la violation de l’article 10 de la Convention.
Sur l’article 41 de la Convention :
Au titre de la satisfaction équitable, les juges de Strasbourg allouent à la société éditrice la somme de 26 000 euros, montant qu’elle avait demandé et qui correspond à celui de sa condamnation par les juridictions françaises.
BICC, 709/15.10.2009
Sau cum ar veni “the use of foreign law & doctrine in American courts”…Ori despre modele de “fédéralisme d’exécution“.
“The federal systems of Switzerland, Germany, and the European Union, for example, all provide that constituent states, not federal bureaucracies, will themselves implement many of the laws, rules, regulations, or decrees enacted by the central “federal” body.”
Supreme Court of United States, 521 U.S. 898, Printz v. United States, 95-1478 Argued: December 3, 1996 — Decided: June 27, 1997. Justice Breyer, with whom Justice Stevens joins, dissenting.
Steven Greer, Andrew Williams, Human Rights in the Council of Europe and the EU: Towards ‘Individual’, ‘Constitutional’ or ‘Institutional’ Justice?, European Law Journal, Oxford: Jul 2009. Vol. 15, Iss. 4;
The European Convention on Human Rights, promulgated by the Council of Europe in 1950, is widely regarded as the world’s most successful experiment in the trans-national judicial protection of human rights. The EU’s much more recent judicial and political interest in human rights has also been widely welcomed. Yet, while the crisis currently afflicting the Convention system has not gone unnoticed, the same cannot equally be said of the difficulties presented by the increasing interpenetration of the two systems. Amongst the few who have shown some interest in these problems, the dominant view is that good will and common sense will provide adequate solutions. We disagree. Instead, we detect a gathering crisis which, unless properly analysed and effectively tackled, will only deepen as the EU’s interest in human rights develops further. In our view, the problem is essentially conceptual and that, ultimately, it boils down to a much-neglected question, simple to state but not so easy to answer: is the trans-national protection of human rights in Europe a matter of ‘individual’, ‘constitutional’ or ‘institutional’ justice?
“Comisia Europeană a dat în judecată România la Curtea Europeană de Justitie pentru omisiuni repetate de a se conforma legislatiei comunitare de protectie a păsărilor sălbatice. În urma aderării sale la Uniunea Europeană în 2007, România avea obligatia de a desemna mai multe zone de protectie a păsărilor, însă procesul legislativ a fost lent si, desi s-au făcut unele progrese, tara nu si-a onorat încă toate angajamentele asumate în domeniul conservării naturii. În România, unde trăiesc 12 specii amenintate cu disparitia la nivel mondial, o suprafată totală de peste un milion de hectare asteaptă încă să primească statutul juridic de protectie prevăzut initial. Deoarece scrisorile de avertizare adresate României nu au avut efectul dorit, Comisia a decis să ia măsuri mai energice si a chemat tara în instantă.”
Comunicatul Comisiei *
Pat Murphy, 8th Circuit says credit card issuer can enforce arbitration clause, Lawyers USA, Boston, Oct 9, 2009. [*]
U.S. Court of Appeals, 8th Circuit. Cicle v. Chase Bank USA, No. 08-1362. Oct. 6, 2009.
George M. Cohen, Interpretation and Implied Terms in Contract Law (September 15, 2009). Encyclopedia of Law and Economics, 2nd Edition, Forthcoming ; Virginia Law and Economics Research Paper No. 2009-12. Available at SSRN.
Daca ai timp si urmaresti cu atentie presa scrisa (si cea “vorbita” sic!) poti extrage o multime de concluzii interesante. De exemplu, un ziar central istoriseste despre “bumul” (sic!) cererii de product cultural (sic!) consecinta a castigarii premiului Nobel pentru literatura. Articolul incepe usurel, narand ignoranta cititorului local (sic!). Apoi se ajunge la “intervievarea” “profesionistilor”; redam in extenso:
„Premiul ne-a luat pe nepregătite” „A fost o surpriză, premiul ne-a luat pe nepregătite”, spune Cristina Popa de la Librăriile Humanitas. În cele 17 librării Humanitas din Bucureşti şi din ţară existau, ieri, între 10 şi 20 de exemplare, în fiecare magazin, din cele trei titluri ale Hertei Müller publicate la Polirom : „Regele se-nclină si ucide”(2005, traducere şi note de Al. Şahighian), „Este sau nu este Ion” (2005; poeme-colaj în limba română), „Animalul inimii” ( 2006; traducere de Nora Iuga). „Aseară, nu mai exista în nicio librărie Humanitas niciun exemplar din volumele ei”, declară Cristina Popa. La libraria Humanitas din Sibiu, s-au vândut ieri toate cele trei cărţi ale Hertei Müller, care mai existau în stoc, ale titlului de poezie „Este sau nu este Ion”. „Până acum cărţile erau la reducere, acum le vindem cu preţ întreg. Luni, Editura Polirom ne va trimite noi exemplare şi vom completa stocul. De altfel, lanţul Librăriilor Humanitas va organiza o săptămâna dedicată scriitorilor cu Nobel, iar cărţile acestor autori vor fi vândute cu 10% reducere săptămâna viitoare, în acest program”, explică Cristina Popa. „Nu mai avem nici un exemplar pe stoc, în reţeaua Cărtureşti, nu avem de ceva vreme cărţile Hertei Müller. Aşteptăm o reeditare a cărţilor la editura Polirom, pentru că sigur vor fi cereri”, a precizat Alina Jijău, PR Cărtureşti. Nici în reţeaua Diverta nu mai există exemplare pe stoc de luni de zile. „La nicio oră după anunţul referitor la acordarea Premiului Nobel Hertei Müller, în magazinele Diverta a urmat un val de cereri din partea consumatorilor. Titlurile scriitoarei se vor găsi în curând în magazinele Diverta, imediat ce acestea vor fi disponibile la furnizor“, declară Emilia Canea, de la Ceo Diverta”.
Incheiem citatul aici, dar nu si invatamintele trase de pe urma acestor istorisiri. Prin urmare, ce portret robot are consumatorul (sic!, asa apare mai sus) de cultura care la 10 minute de la anunt navaleste in librarie pentru a comanda & cumpara? Mai ales ca la ora in cauza, proletariatul, clasa muncitoare sau cum vreti sa-i spuneti populatiei active (sic!) era in timpul programului de lucru…
Sa fie ochii zgaiti pe geamul tramvaiului, obositi de lectura matinala a unor carti impachetate in ziar? Pesemne, traim in plin postmodernism.
PS. Suntem realmente curiosi sa ne exprimati gandurile domniilor voastre “pe” (sic!) acest subiect (subiectiv).
PPS. Acum, ne gandim ce soarta vor avea (auto)biografiile noului castigator al Nobelului pro-pacis?
Bogdan Manescu - sef al Departamentului pentru Afaceri Europene (DAE) din 09.10.2009-
Richard D.Freer, Forging American Arbitration Policy: Judicial Interpretation of the Federal Arbitration Act. RESOLVING INTERNATIONAL DISPUTES: LIBER AMICORUM TIBOR VARADY, Peter Hay, Nenad Dimitrijevic, and Lajos Vekas, eds., Central European University Press, June 2009; Emory Public Law Research Paper No. 9-69. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
Although American courts initially were hostile to agreements to arbitration, the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) instructed the courts – at least, on the face of things, the federal courts – to enforce arbitration clauses. It has become clear in the past generation that the FAA has accomplished much more. The currrent state of affairs is not the result of the legislation alone. The central thrust of the FAA was clear, but courts could surely have thwarted its impact by parsimonious interpretation. This is true in part because Congress failed to deal definitively with fundamental issues – including whether the FAA was to apply in state court proceedings and whether the Act provided federal subject matter jurisdiction. It fell to the courts to pick up the pieces left by the statutory language. The purpose of this brief piece is to review selected topics on which the courts have been required to fashion rules affecting the impact of the FAA. First are matters addressed by the legislation, but unclearly. As to these, courts have had to engage in basic statutory interpretation. Second – and perhaps more interesting – are matters not addressed at all by the FAA. As to these, the courts have had to decide whether (and, if so, how) to fill in the gaps in the legislation. In both sets of examples, Congress probably should have been clearer. And in both sets, the courts have forged courses that generally promote a broad application of the FAA. In the end, the broad, well-established American arbitration policy embodied in the FAA has been realized only because courts have been willing to step in to interpret and fill gaps as needed.
Problema libertatii de expresie a societatilor e cunoscuta. Un nou episod:
Kuliś si Różycki c. Polonia (CEDO, 6 octombrie 2009, n° 27209/03)
[sumar]
SANCTION FOR PUBLISHING SATIRICAL CARTOONS UNJUSTIFIED
Violation of Article 10 (freedom of expression and information)
of the European Convention on Human Rights
Under Article 41 (just satisfaction) of the Convention, the Court awarded the first applicant 7,200 euros (EUR) in respect of pecuniary damage, EUR 3,000 in respect of non-pecuniary damage and EUR 6,100 for costs and expenses. (The judgment is available only in English.)
Principal facts
The applicants, Mr Mirosław Kuliś and Mr Piotr Różycki, are two Polish nationals, who were born in 1956 and 1946 respectively. The first applicant lives in Łόdź. The second applicant died in 2004.
The first applicant owns a publishing house named “Westa Druk” which publishes a weekly magazine, Angora, and its supplement for children, Angorka. The second applicant was the editor in chief of the magazine.
On 16 May 1999 Angorka published an article referring to an advertising campaign by a company, Star Foods, for its potato crisps. The article was critical of an ad placed by the company onto its crisps packaging which called a popular cartoon character for children “a murderer”. The Angorka article included in particular an image of the cartoon character followed by the statements “Polish children shocked by crisps ad” and “Don’t worry, I would be a murderer too if I ate this muck!”.
The Star Foods Company brought civil proceedings against both applicants seeking an apology, reimbursement of their legal costs and the payment of some money by the applicants to a charity. These claims were granted by the courts who found that the applicants’ article, by using strongly pejorative words which conveyed disgust and repulsion, had discredited the products of the company. The applicants’ subsequent appeals were dismissed.
Complaints, procedure and composition of the Court
Relying on Article 10, the applicants complained of the sanctions imposed on them.
The application was lodged with the European Court of Human Rights on 10 June 2003.
Judgment was given by a Chamber of seven judges, composed as follows:
Nicolas Bratza (United Kingdom), President,
Lech Garlicki (Poland),
Giovanni Bonello (Malta),
Ljiljana Mijović (Bosnia and Herzegovina),
Päivi Hirvelä (Finland),
Ledi Bianku (Albania),
Nebojša Vučinić (Montenegro), judges,
and Fatoş Aracı, Deputy Section Registrar.
Decision of the Court
The Court noted that the company’s crisps campaign, although mainly aimed at children, had used slogans with inappropriate content for them. This had clearly raised issues which were of interest and importance for the public.
In addition, the cartoon published in the applicants’ article had been obviously inspired by the company’s advertising campaign as they had used the cartoon character and the slogan which had featured on the crisps packets. The Court accordingly found that the applicants had not aimed to denigrate the quality of the crisps but to raise awareness of the type of slogans used by the company and the unacceptability of such tactics to generate sales.
The Court finally considered that the domestic courts had failed to have regard to the fact that the press had a duty to impart information and ideas on matters of public interest and in so doing could resort to some exaggeration or even provocation, as had been the situation in the present case. Accordingly, the domestic courts had not justified the sanctions imposed on the applicants, and there had been therefore a violation of Article 10.
***
This press release is a document produced by the Registry; the summary it contains does not bind the Court. The judgments are accessible on its Internet site (http://www.echr.coe.int).
Press contacts
Kristina Pencheva-Malinowski (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 70) or
Stefano Piedimonte (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 42 04)
Tracey Turner-Tretz (tel : + 33 (0)3 88 41 35 30)
Céline Menu-Lange (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 58 77) or
Frédéric Dolt (tel : + 33 (0)3 90 21 53 39)
Nina Salomon (tel: + 33 (0)3 90 21 49 79)
The European Court of Human Rights was set up in Strasbourg by the Council of Europe Member States in 1959 to deal with alleged violations of the 1950 European Convention on Human Rights.
1 Under Article 43 of the Convention, within three months from the date of a Chamber judgment, any party to the case may, in exceptional cases, request that the case be referred to the 17-member Grand Chamber of the Court. In that event, a panel of five judges considers whether the case raises a serious question affecting the interpretation or application of the Convention or its protocols, or a serious issue of general importance, in which case the Grand Chamber will deliver a final judgment. If no such question or issue arises, the panel will reject the request, at which point the judgment becomes final. Otherwise Chamber judgments become final on the expiry of the three-month period or earlier if the parties declare that they do not intend to make a request to refer.
