Regulamentul Roma I a fost adoptat

Regulametul Roma I, privind legea aplicabila obligatiilor contractuale,  a fost adoptat la Luxembourg in 5-6 iunie 2008. Textul adoptat al Regulamentului in en, fr si ro.

Un comentariu, cu istoricul problemei precum si cu viitorul, interesant, gasiti aici.

 

Date cu caracter personal, stanga-dreapta si societati la CEDO

Inca o data: se va intampla dupa aderarea UE la CEDO? Sa vezi directivele in actiune…

I Avgi Publishing and Press Agency S.A. & Karis c. Grèce (requête n ^o 15909/06) du 5 juin 2008 [*]

La Cour a rendu un arrêt de violation contre la Grèce à propos de la condamnation d’un journal de gauche, I’Avgi, pour diffamation. L’article contesté évoquait une manifestation organisée par des opposants à une décision de l’Autorité pour la protection des données à caractère personnel : pour l’autorité, la mention de certains éléments, notamment celui de la religion, sur la carte d’identité constituait un traitement de données contraire à la loi relative à la protection des données à caractère personnel. L’Eglise orthodoxe était très opposée à cette décision. L’article visait K.V., journaliste et écrivain qui anime une émission politique diffusée par une station de télévision dans le nord de la Grèce, et l’un des organisateurs du rassemblement ; l’article, le situant à l’extrême-droite, le qualifie de « nationaliste effréné connu », expression pour laquelle les requérants seront condamnés, la cour de cassation grecque ayant indiqué que les seuls termes d’extrême-droite et de nationaliste auraient suffi et n’auraient pas constitué une diffamation.

La Cour Edh condamne la Grèce pour violation de l’article 10 CEDH : “le rôle des juridictions internes dans une procédure de diffamation ne consiste pas à indiquer au journaliste le strict minimum des termes et qualifications à employer lorsque celui-ci exerce, dans le cadre de sa profession, son droit de critique, même de manière acerbe. Les tribunaux internes sont plutôt appelés à examiner si le contexte de l’affaire, l’intérêt du public et l’intention du journaliste, justifiaient l’éventuel recours à une dose de provocation ou d’exagération.” Par ailleurs la Cour constate que la condamnation des requérants à payer la somme de 58.000 euros au titre du dommage moral subi, est “disproportionnée avec le but poursuivi par la mesure restrictive en cause.”

 

SUA. Procurorii generali din 10 state cer suspendarea deciziei Curtii Supreme din California care impune legalizarea casatoriilor intre indivizi de acelasi sex

Ei bine, acum etapa II. Instanta suprema din California a impus legalizarea casatoriilor respective. Decizia aici. Apoi urmeaza petitiunea mai multor procurori generali de suspendare a efectelor deciziei.

Din stire:

In a letter to the court’s chief justice, Ronald George, the attorneys general — all Republicans — asked that the marriages be put off until after the November election, when California voters are expected to vote on a measure that would ban same-sex marriages.

The attorneys general said that allowing same-sex marriages now could unnecessarily open the door to legal challenges from gay residents of other states who get married in California. Upon returning to their home states, the newlyweds could demand equality in everything from tax-filing status to testimonial privileges in civil suits, the attorneys general said.

O actualizare din LA Times: unii afirma ca statul in cauza, California, se va imbogati pe seama celor care vor hotarari sa-si “uneasca” (desigur, un fel de-a vorbi, pana la urma) destinele. Sa dam cuvantul unei doamne de la un “institut de drept al orientarii sexuale”:

“M.V. Lee Badgett, research director at the Williams Institute on Sexual Orientation Law and Public Policy at the UCLA School of Law, estimates that gay weddings could provide a $370-million boost to the state economy.

That estimate presumes that about half of California’s 92,000 same-sex couples will tie the knot, multiplied by $8,040, the amount of money from savings accounts that Badgett figures same-sex couples will use on their weddings.

Event planners, restaurants, tent and chair rental companies, florists, caterers and hotels should all get a piece of that pie, she said.

“There’s an opportunity to get a big wedding windfall,” she said.

There are, of course, some caveats. No one can accurately project how many gay couples will spend thousands on weddings. And the legality of gay weddings is potentially short-lived, as officials verify petition signatures for a proposed Nov. 4 ballot initiative that would prohibit same-sex marriage”.

4 iunie a.c. Propunerea de modificare a Constitutiei Californiei intra la referendumul din noiembrie, cand se organizeaza alegeri… Associated Press.

The measure would amend the state constitution to “provide that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.”

If approved by a majority of voters on Nov. 4, the amendment would overturn the recent California Supreme Court ruling that legalized same-sex marriage in the state. It is similar to gay marriage bans that have been adopted in 26 other states.

Si corespondenta oficiala referitoare la initiativa de modificare a constitutiei (*).

The Interrelationship of European Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Contract

Zheng Tang, The Interrelationship of European Jurisdiction and Choice of Law in Contract, Journal of Private International Law, Vol 4 Issue , April 2008.
Abstract
Compared with scholarship in other conflicts topics, less attention has been paid to the interrelationship of jurisdiction and choice of law. It is generally agreed that as a matter of principle jurisdiction and choice of law are distinct issues and need different processes. The conceptual dichotomy is the foundation of the contemporary conflicts system, including the European harmonisation of private international law. The European jurisdiction rules in civil and commercial matters are contained in the Brussels regime, including Council Regulation 44/2001 and the Lugano Convention; the European choice of law in contracts is harmonised by the Rome Convention, which has been undergoing a process to be converted into a Council Regulation (”Rome I”). Although the legislators have held the willingness to create a systematic and congruent conflicts system, a close scrutiny of the texts of both regimes suggests insufficient consideration has actually been given to the implications of the development of one upon the other. This article aims to focus on the interrelationship of jurisdiction and choice of law in contracts by examining some key issues arising out of the current European context.

 

CEDO- victima propriului succes

Laurence R. Helfer, Redesigning the European Court of Human Rights: Embeddedness as a Deep Structural Principle of the European Human Rights Regime, Journal of International Law, Vol. 19, p. 125, 2008 Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1021798

 The European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) is the crown jewel of the world’s most advanced international system for protecting civil and political liberties. In recent years, however, the ECtHR has become a victim of its own success. The Court now faces a docket crisis of massive proportions, the consequence of the growing number of states subject to its jurisdiction, its favourable public reputation, its expansive interpretations of individual liberties, a distrust of domestic judiciaries in some countries, and entrenched human rights problems in others. In response to this growing backlog of individual complaints, the Council of Europe has, over the last five years, considered numerous proposals to restructure the European human rights regime and redesign the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). This article argues that these proposals should be understood not as ministerial changes in supranational judicial procedure, nor as resolving a debate over whether the ECtHR should strive for individual or constitutional justice, but rather as raising more fundamental questions concerning the Court’s future identity. In particular, the article argues for recognition of ‘embeddedness‘ in national legal systems as a deep structural principle of the ECHR, a principle that functions as a necessary counterpoint to the subsidiary doctrine that has animated the Convention since its founding. Embeddedness does not substitute ECtHR rulings for the decisions of national parliaments or domestic courts. Rather, it requires the Council of Europe and the Court to bolster the mechanisms for governments to remedy human rights violations at home, obviating the need for individuals to seek supranational relief and restoring countries to a position in which the ECtHR’s deference to national decision-makers is appropriate.

Regatul Unit si Regulamentul “Roma I”. Document consultativ

Din 2 aprilie a.c.

‘Rome i - should the UK opt in?’

Proposals designed to protect the interests of UK businesses operating in Europe have been announced today by the Government.

The Rome I proposal will provide clarity over which law applies if a dispute arises over a contract made between people or businesses from different countries, allowing cross border trade to continue with confidence.

When the European Commission first announced the proposals in 2005, the UK Government took the unusual step of opting out of the proposals, as they would not have been in the interests of UK businesses. However, following intense negotiations, a substantially revised and hugely improved version has now been agreed.

Announcing the publication of the ‘Rome I- Should the UK Opt in?’ consultation today, Bridget Prentice, Parliamentary Under Secretary of State said:

“The Government has always said that we will not opt into EU measures which are not in our national interest. The original proposal was clearly not right for Britain, but the new and much improved regulation will help to ensure that the rules in this very technical area are applied uniformly. This will ensure a level playing-field for British business in Europe.”

Notes to Editors
* The 1980 Rome Convention was implemented into UK law by the Contracts (Applicable Law) Act 1990. It applies throughout the UK.
* The original Rome I Regulation was released by the European Commission in December 2005.
* The UK exercised its right not to opt in to the proposed Regulation in May 2006. This was only the second time that the UK had opted out of a Regulation under its special arrangements on Title IV of the Treaty establishing the European Community. To opt in, it will have to seek the permission of the European Commission, and agree a timetable for implementation.
* Negotiations on the Rome I Regulation ended with political agreement among Member States in December 2007. Jurist-linguists are presently checking the text for linguistic integrity. The Regulation will be adopted at the next meeting of the Justice and Home Affairs Council in April of June. The main provisions of the Regulation will come into force 18 months later.
* The UK government negotiated on behalf of all UK jurisdictions, and the consultation paper is a joint project of the Ministry of Justice and the devolved administrations.

Documentul se gaseste aici (*).

Horatia Muir-Watt. Dreptul international privat intr-o lume in schimbare

Reshaping Private International Law in a Changing World, editorial de pe blogul ConflictofLaws.net (*).

Viziuni asupra libertatii de exprimare. De la TPI, via CJCE, la CEDO.

Prin Tratatul de la Lisabona s-a infaptuit un vis al celor care vor un balamuc definitiv in aceasta peninsula, coditza continentului asiatic, careia i se mai spune Europa.

Uniunea Europeana va adera la CEDO.

Pana atunci va dau o veste mai putin vesela. Tocmai s-a judecat,  decizia este din 27 noiembrie 2008, cazul d-lui Martin Tillack. S-a judecat la CEDO, ca se judecase si la TPI si CJCE.

La instantele european-comunitare (TPI: Ordonanta din 15.10.2004, T-193/04 R; CJCE: C-521/04, Ordonanta din 19.04.2005), domnul Tillack a pierdut, iar la instantele european-conventionale, mai precis la CEDO - a castigat (cererea nr. 20477/05): Martin Tillack c. Belgia - definitiva in 28.02.2008.

Articol despre conflictul intre drepturile fundamentale din perspectiva CEDO, CJCE & a instantelor nationale…

Fundamental Rights and Other Interests - Should it Really Make a Difference?
Janneke H. Gerards

University of Leiden, Department of Public Law
In: Brems, E. (ed.), Conflicts between Fundamental Rights, Antwerp/Oxford: Intersentia 2008

Abstract:     
When speaking about conflicts between fundamental rights, we have the impression that we speak about something special. Courts appear to be willing to decide a case concerning an infringement of a classic fundamental right, such as a civil or political right, since they feel they can do so on the basis of clear legal standards. On the other hand, they are reluctant to adjudicate claims concerning social or economic interests, as they consider political and policy arguments to be of more importance there. Accordingly, courts generally show a larger measure of deference in the latter type of case than in cases concerning clearly identifiable individual interests or rights.The question is, however, whether the distinction we make between classic fundamental rights and other interests is always reasonable and if it is justifiable to attach far-reaching judicial consequences to the distinction. The choice of judicial method and intensity of review should not solely depend on the question whether an individual interest is protected by national or international instruments containing enforceable fundamental rights. This thesis is elaborated in this paper on the basis of the case law of the European Court of Human Rights, the European Court of Justice and administrative courts in the Netherlands and the United Kingdom. On basis of these case law analyses, conclusions are reached regarding the difference between fundamental rights and interests in the assessment methods of national and European courts. Also, a tentative effort is made to formulate an alternative approach.

Aici (*).

Uniunea cauta sa combata orice discriminare pe motive de (…) religie (Tratatul de la Lisabona, 2007)

Ronan McCrea, Limitations on Religion in a Liberal Democratic Polity: Christianity and Islam in the Public Order of the European Union (December 2007). LSE Legal Studies Working Paper No. 18/2007 Available at SSRN.

This paper examines aspects of the European Union’s approach to the accession of new member states and the integration of immigrants to show how the Union has viewed religion as a potential threat to the autonomy of the public sphere and to individual autonomy in the private sphere and has required acceptance of limitations on religious influence over law and law-making from both applicant states and individual migrants. It notes how, in common with the jurisprudence of the European Court of Human Rights, the EU has been willing to interfere with privacy and individual autonomy in order to protect such principles from the consequences of unlimited religious influence on law and society. Finally the paper considers how the Union’s attempts to uphold limitations on religion in the public sphere have been complicated by the partial and contested nature of the secularity of its existing members. It shows how an Islamic presence in the public sphere has been identified by the Union as particularly threatening to the liberal democracy in contrast to its ready acceptance of the public roles of culturally and historically entrenched Christian denominations in many member states.

Decizie a Consiliului UE privind aderarea Romaniei & Bulgariei la Conventia de la Roma privind legea aplicabila contractelor

Adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie à la Convention de Rome sur la loi applicable aux contrats

Une décision du Conseil de l’Union européenne publiée au JOUE du 29 décembre 2007 encadre les conséquences de l’adhésion de la Bulgarie et de la Roumanie à la convention sur la loi applicable aux obligations contractuelles du 19 juin 1980. Cette convention, dont l’objet est de résoudre les conflits de lois en matière contractuelle, à l’exception de certains domaines exclus de son champ d’application (arbitrage, état des personnes, famille, etc), a été successivement adoptée par tous les États membres. La convention de 1980 et les premier et deuxième protocoles de 1988, ainsi que les conventions de 1984, de 1992 et de 1996, tels que modifiés par la présente décision, entreront en vigueur entre la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et les États membres de l’UE-15 au 15 janvier 2008. En ce qui concerne les relations avec les États membres issus de l’élargissement de 2004, la version consolidée de la convention établie en 2005 s’appliquera à compter du 15 janvier 2008 entre la Bulgarie, la Roumanie et les États dans lesquels celle-ci est entrée en vigueur.

Source Cons. UE, déc. 2007/856/CE, 8 nov. 2007 : JOUE n° L 347, 29 déc. 2007, p. 1

(*)

Consiliul de Stat (Franta) si “pactele civile de solidaritate” incheiate in strainatate

Stirea e interesanta.     Pacs enregistrés à l’étranger : le Conseil d’État suspend une circulaire ministérielle

Par une ordonnance du 18 décembre 2007, le Conseil d’État, saisi en référé par plusieurs associations a ordonné la suspension partielle d’une circulaire du ministère des affaires étrangères relative à la conclusion de Pacs à l”étranger. La circulaire, entrée en vigueur le 28 septembre 2007, a pour effet de permettre aux agents diplomatiques et consulaires, lorsque leur sont présentées des demandes de déclaration conjointe relatives à des Pacs unissant une personne de nationalité française à une personne de nationalité étrangère de s’opposer à l’enregistrement de ces déclarations au nom de « l’ordre public local », dans les pays dont la législation prohibe la « vie de couple, hors mariage, de deux personnes de sexe différent ou du même sexe ». Le Conseil d’État juge qu’ « alors même que dans certains pays les partenaires de Pacs encourraient un risque pénal et qu’il existerait un risque réciproque, selon l’Administration, pour des États étrangers de prendre en France des décisions à l’égard de leurs ressortissants qui seraient contraires à l’ordre public français, la circulaire contestée fait obstacle durablement dans certaines hypothèses à l’exercice des droits reconnus par la loi au Pacs ». De plus, en prévoyant que les autorités diplomatiques et consulaires peuvent refuser d’examiner, à titre définitif, la demande d’enregistrement d’un Pacs dont l’un des partenaires est de nationalité étrangère, la circulaire est entachée d’illégalité. Par conséquent, le Conseil d’État prononce la suspension des paragraphes 6 et 7, première partie, de la circulaire du 28 septembre 2007 et enjoint le ministre des Affaires étrangères et européennes de reprendre dans le délai d’un mois des dispositions conformes au principe d’égalité.

Source CE, ord., 18 déc. 2007, n° 310837, Gisti et a.(*)

Asadar, WTO nu mai sta cuminte…

Nu mai departe de ieri (aici) va povesteam cum o sa se incalzeazca aceasta structură de jurisdicţii. Azi am gasit un document în care şi americanii dau primele semne ca nu aşa ar fi vrut.

Şi, ce e mai important, de acum încolo vor putea afirma ca WTO nu mai este al lor. Nu uitati începutul titlului Negotiate or Litigate…

Judith Goldstein, Richard H.Steinberg, Negotiate or Litigate? Effects of WTO Judicial Delegation on U.S. Trade Politics, UCLA School of Law, Law-Econ Research Paper No. 07-14 Available at SSRN.

This article argues that the Appellate Body of the World Trade Organization has engaged in substantial lawmaking since its inception and that, in many circumstances, decisions rendered by court-like bodies in the WTO are adhered to even when the same policy would not gain support in multilateral negotiations. The emergence of judicial lawmaking at the WTO is due to largely to the decline of non-reciprocity in the regime, which has catalyzed North-South deadlock in the legislative process. As the prospects for broad legislative rule-making have declined, judicial lawmaking has become more common. Judicial lawmaking is consequential only if the powerful members of the WTO choose to adhere to judicial rulings. To explain adherence, we offer a model of decision-making in the United States and suggest that, in a number of circumstances, the President and Congress find compliance with international court decisions to be in their interest, resulting in trade opening that would not have resulted from ministerial negotiations.

din dou despre pluralitatea de jurisdictii

scriam nu de mult (aici) ca fiecare organizatie vrea sa aiba proprii judecatori.

Ceea ce este doar un cub de gheata intr-un pahar de limonada se poate transforma - si se va trasforma ! - intr-o incalzire globala a jurisdictiilor. Numai sa stati si sa le numarati…daramite competentele si conflictele de legi aplicabile.

La care se adauga si de-reglementarea ajutata tocmai de aceasta supra-supra-structurare legislativa (care are si un fundal, coerent sau nu, incipient in cele mai multe cazuri, jurisdictional/arbitral).

Asadar, din seria Conflictelor jurisditiilor, va prezentam

Andrea K. Bjorklund, Private Rights and Public International Law: Why Competition Among International Economic Law Tribunals is Not Working, Hastings Law Journal, Vol. 59, 2007 (*)

De ce se inghesuie toti la jude?

Pentru ca asa mai obtin o bucatica din putere; din care putere, nu se stie, dar un tribunal este util la casa (asociatia, organizatia) omului….

Andrew D. Mitchell, The Legal Basis for Using Principles in WTO Disputes, Journal of International Economic Law Advance Access published online on November 14, 2007 (*)

This article argues that the use of principles in WTO dispute resolution is both necessary and desirable. However, Panels and the Appellate Body (WTO Tribunals) have often ignored principles or not clearly identified the legal basis for their use. This article establishes a framework for the use of principles (in particular principles of WTO law, principles of customary international law, and general principles of law) in WTO dispute settlement. Broadly, WTO Tribunals can use principles drawn from these categories to interpret WTO provisions, based on Article 3.2 of the DSU, and Articles 31 and 32 of the VCLT. This follows most directly from a teleological approach to interpretation, but principles also feature under subjective and textual approaches to interpretation. WTO Tribunals may also use certain principles in a non-interpretative manner. Indeed, this may be necessary, particularly to address procedural issues. Precisely how a principle may be used depends on its type, content and status.