Koji Takahashi, Unmasking Anonymous Online Infringers of Personality Rights: Questions Arising in International Contexts

Isabelle Barrière Brousse, Le traité de Lisbonne et le droit international privé, Journal du droit international, 1/2010

Isabelle Barrière Brousse, Le traité de Lisbonne et le droit international privé, Journal du droit international, 1/2010

Since the evolution of European Community law already threatens the private international law of the Member States, will these systems survive the Lisbon Treaty ?

Despite the weakness of the legal basis of their competence, European authorities have already affected the rules concerning choice of law and of jurisdiction in many ways, and intend to exclude the Member States from the international scene by removing their right to conclude agreements with third countries. Will the Lisbon Treaty change this ? Between the affirmation of Community competence and respect of the Member States’ legal systems and traditions, the treaty’s influence seems to be difficult to forecast. Nevertheless, the emphasis on the role of the States and their National Parliaments and the very objective of creating a European judicial area while respecting diversity establish implied but real limitations on the expansion of Community rules in this area.

Droit international privé des successions – quel futur en Europe et en Suisse?

On Friday, 19th March 2010, the 22nd Journée de droit international privé, organised by the Swiss Institute of Comparative Law (ISDC) and the University of Lausanne (Center of Comparative Law, European Law and Foreign Legislations), will analyse the Commission’s Proposal on Succession: “Droit international privé des successions – quel futur en Europe et en Suisse?”.

The list of confirmed speakers includes Prof. Andrea Bonomi (Univ. of Lausanne), Prof. Paul Lagarde (Univ. of Paris I – Sorbonne ) and Prof. Oliver Remien (Univ. of Würzburg). A detailed programme and further information will be posted as soon as available.

CONFLICTOFLAWS.NET

Th.M. de Boer, THE PURPOSE OF UNIFORM CHOICE-OF-LAW RULES: THE ROME II REGULATION, Netherlands International Law Review

Th.M. de Boer, THE PURPOSE OF UNIFORM CHOICE-OF-LAW RULES: THE ROME II REGULATION, Netherlands International Law Review, Volume 56, Issue 03, December 2009, pp 295-332 [*]

The year 2009 marks the entry into force of the first two EC regulations on choice of law: one on torts and other non-contractual obligations (‘Rome II’), and one on contracts (‘Rome I’). In both regulations, the need for uniform choice-of-law rules is explained, generally, in the preamble. In ‘Rome II’, various recitals specify the purposes some particular rules are meant to achieve. Apart from ambiguous statements on ‘the need to do justice in individual cases’ and the intention ‘to ensure a reasonable balance between the interests of the parties’, there are various references to the objectives of substantive law, said to be reflected in specific conflicts rules. As will be shown in this article, the ‘Rome II’ preamble promises much more than its rules can possibly deliver. Not only do most of the arguments in support of uniform conflicts rules turn out to be spurious, the policies underlying specific provisions have been translated into connecting factors that are mostly incapable of fulfilling the purposes they are meant to achieve. Since most provisions are focused on the principle of the closest connection they are obviously not inspired by the function of substantive law, nor do they allow a choice of the law best suited to the objective the rule is supposed to promote.

International Arbitration Law Review, 5/2009

International Arbitration Law Review

Volume 12, Number 5, 2009

ALEXIS MOURRE AND ALEXANDRE VAGENHEIM, The Arbitration Exclusion in Regulation 44/2001 after West Tankers

GABRIËL MOENS AND SAM LUTTRELL, The Appointment and Challenge of Arbitrators Under the Rules of the Australian Centre for International Commercial Arbitration

DANIEL E. GONZÁLEZ AND MARÍA EUGENIA RAMÍREZ, International Commercial Arbitration: Hurdles when Confirming a Foreign Arbitral Award in the United States

JANE PLAYER AND CLAIRE MOREL DE WESTGAVER, Lawyer-Client Privilege in International Arbitration-a Blurred Area Prone to Unpredictability or Useful Flexibility?

NORBERT HORN, Arbitration and Electronic Communications: public policy

News Section

An international review of recent cases and developments

Regulamentul (CE) nr. 864/2007 al Parlamentului European si al Consiliului din 11 iulie 2007 privind legea aplicabilă obligatiilor necontractuale („Roma II”)

Regulamentul (CE) nr. 864/2007 al Parlamentului European si al Consiliului din 11 iulie 2007 privind legea aplicabilă obligatiilor necontractuale („Roma II”)

Text integral

CSDE: «Legea aplicabilă obligaţiilor contractuale conform Regulamentului (CE) nr. 593/2008 din 17 iunie 2008 (ROMA I)» (30.10.2009)

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 Română de Arbitraj

Editura Universul Juridic

Revista Forumul Judecatorilor

Editura Universitară

Editura Wolters Kluwer

Editura Hamangiu

Editura C.H.Beck

Revista Română de Drept Comunitar, infolegal.ro, Tribuna Economică, Euroconsultanţă, https://eubusinesslaw.wordpress.com/.

Comitetul de organizare: Nicolae Turcu, Mihai Banu, Mihai Sandru, Andrei Savescu.

* * *

Documente referitoare la această conferinţă vor fi disponibile la adresa web

https://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.

Anatol Dutta, The Death of the Shareholder in the Conflict of Laws, Rabels Zeitschrift, Vol. 73, No. 4, October 2009

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]

Revista Romana de Arbitraj, nr. 4/2009: Sergiu Deleanu: Uzantele comerciale in contextul Regulamentului Roma I

Sergiu Deleanu, Uzantele comerciale in contextul Regulamentului Roma I, Revista Romana de Arbitraj, nr. 4/2009.

Christiana H.J.I. Panayi, Corporate Mobility in Private International Law and European Community Law: Debunking Some Myths

Christiana H.J.I. Panayi, Corporate Mobility in Private International Law and European Community Law: Debunking Some Myths. YEARBOOK OF EUROPEAN LAW, Eeckhout, P., Tridimas, T., eds., Vol. 28, Oxford University Press, 2009; Queen Mary School of Law Legal Studies Research Paper No. 26/2009. Available at SSRN.

Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels, Annelise Riles, International Law in Domestic Courts

Karen Knop, Ralf Michaels, Annelise Riles, International Law in Domestic Courts: A Conflict of Laws Approach(April 23, 2009). American Society of International Law Proceedings, Vol. 103, 2009; Duke Law School Public Law & Legal Theory Paper No. 253; Cornell Legal Studies Research Paper No. 09-016. Available at SSRN.

Abstract:     
The relationship between international law and domestic law is rarely understood as a conflict of laws. Understanding it in this way opens up a parallel with the field of conflict of laws: the field for which the relationship between legal systems, especially the role of another system’s jurisdiction, laws, and judgments vis-à-vis the domestic legal system, are exactly the bread-and-butter issues. We argue for such an approach to international law in domestic courts: an approach that we elaborate as „theory through technique.”

In our view, conflicts should be seen broadly as the discipline that developed to deal with conflicts between laws, without necessarily being committed to any one method or policy. Surprisingly, we demonstrate that it is precisely the seemingly negative features of conflicts – the field’s high degree of technicality disparaged as a „conflict-of-laws machine” and the multitude of theories famously deemed a „dismal swamp” – that figure among the advantages of a conflict-of-laws approach to international law in domestic courts.

A conflict-of-laws approach offers ways to respect the nature of international law as law, without simplifying that nature by characterizing it exactly as domestic law. In addition, seeing the parallel with conflict of laws brings a wealth of experience that can enrich and refine the debate on international law in domestic courts. Finally, the parallel with conflicts changes international law in domestic courts from a specific problem addressed by international and constitutional lawyers into a general problem of relativism – which, we argue, conflict of laws is uniquely positioned to address.

Horst G. M. Eidenmueller, Andreas Engert, Lars Hornuf, The Societas Europaea: Good News for European Firms

Horst G. M. Eidenmueller,  Andreas Engert, LarsHornuf, The Societas Europaea: Good News for European Firms, May 25, 2009. Available at SSRN.

Abstract:     
When Council Regulation (EC) No 2157/2001 on the Statute for a European Company (Societas Europaea – SE) became effective on 8 October 2004, it offered publicly traded companies, for the first time, a choice between competing company laws, namely the national law of the company’s home state and the law of the supranational SE. Using an event study methodology, we analyse a unique dataset of publicly traded firms that have announced to re-incorporate under the SE Regulation. We find the re-incorporation decision to have a positive impact on firms’ stock market value. The abnormal returns associated with re-incorporating as an SE increase over the years, which we interpret as the result of declining legal uncertainty and a rising reputational value of the SE corporate form.

Camelia Toader, Arbitrajul si dreptul comunitar, Revista Romana de Arbitraj, nr. 3/2009

Prof.univ.dr. Camelia Toader, Arbitrajul si dreptul comunitar, Revista Romana de Arbitraj, nr. 3/2009.

Drept si politica in UE. Astazi despre amanarea propunerilor Comisiei in materia succesiunilor, respectiv a impozitului pe societati

Redam in extenso o stire chiar interesanta [sursa]:

Commission fears negative Irish reactions over law on inheritance.

Plans for EU-wide recognition of inheritance claims have fallen victim to Ireland’s projected second referendum on the Lisbon treaty. The European Commission has postponed a controversial plan to have wills and inheritance claims recognised across member states until after the Irish referendum, expected in the autumn. 

Both Commission President José Manuel Barroso and Catherine Day, the secretary-general, requested that the proposal be put on hold, for fear of negative reactions in the Irish Republic on the sensitive matter of family inheritance ahead of the crucial referendum.

Jacques Barrot, the European commissioner for justice, freedom and security, was to publish the proposal in March, but was halted just weeks before. “Officially we were told it was because of the referendum, that it might have a negative influence,” said one EU official. The delay mirrors a decision by the Commission not to propose legislation on corporate tax ahead of the first Irish referendum in June last year.

Opt-ins

Although Ireland, as well as the UK, would be offered an ‘opt-in’ to the new legislation, even discussing it is seen as a risk, because it could generate resentment about the EU among the electorate. In both countries, opponents depict it as a potential threat to their common law systems. The fear for both countries would be a proposal that allowed foreign laws on inheritance to be applied in their own courts. This could, for instance, see relatives ‘claw back’ property or items given away by the deceased during their lifetime – a mechanism allowed under many member states’ succession laws, but precluded by Irish and UK law.

Legal uncertainty

Other member states argue that legislation is needed to remove legal uncertainty in the increasingly common cases of EU citizens living in one member state with certain inheritance rules, but with property in another member state subject to different rules. There is already anger among some countries that an opt-in is permitted to Ireland and the UK on police and judicial co-operation, which allows them to negotiate on a proposal and choose not to adopt it at the end. “In particular the French are angry at the way this is operating,” an official said. One of the factors in the call by Barroso and Day to defer discussion of the proposal is thought to be a desire to allay UK and Irish fears about the proposal, encouraging them to opt in from the start.

Best proposal possible

The formal Commission position, as expressed by a spokesman, is that “this is a very sensitive issue and we want to make sure we have the best proposal possible”. He denied that the Irish referendum or the opt-in have anything to do with the delay in the proposal’s publication, adding: “The Commission services are still at work on it and I don’t know when we will be able to have a final text.”

A conference on the issue organised by the Czech presidency of the EU on 20-21 April was hamstrung because there was no legislation to discuss. The postponement has also created headaches for Sweden, which will have to set aside time for discussions on the proposal among member states when it takes over the EU’s rotating presidency on 1 July.

Sumar. John Ahern and William Binchy (eds.), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. A New International Litigation Regime, Brill, 2009.

Volumul este „transcrierea” unei conferinte.

John Ahern and William Binchy (eds.), The Rome II Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations. A New International Litigation Regime, Brill, 2009. [*]

 

Foreword; List of Contributors; List of Abbreviations; Case Index; Legislation Index

Introduction: Rome

II – A Parliamentary Tale
Diana Wallis

Johan Meeusen, Rome

II: A True Piece of Community Law

Janeen Carruthers, Has the Forum Lost Its Grip?

 

Russell J. Weintraub, Rome II: Will it Prevent Forum Shopping and Take Account of the Consequences of Choice of Law?

Andrew Scott, The Scope of ‘Non-Contractual Obligations’

Richard Fentiman,
The Significance of Close Connection

Thomas Kadner Graziano,  Freedom to Choose the Applicable Law in Tort – Articles 14 and 4(3) of the Rome II Regulation

Alex Mills, The Application of Multiple Laws Under the Rome II Regulation

Jan von Hein, Article 4 and Traffic Accidents

Peter Stone, Product Liability under the Rome II Regulation

Adam Rushworth, Remedies and the Rome II Regulation

Michael Bogdan, The Treatment of Environmental Damage in Regulation Rome II

Stephen G.A. Pitel, Rome II and Choice of Law for Unjust Enrichment 

Liz Heffernan, Rome II: Implications for Irish Tort Litigation

Gernot Biehler, The Limits of Rome II 

Appendices
– Regulation No. 864/2007 on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations (Rome II)
– Commission of the European Communities Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, COM (2003) 427 fi nal 2003/0168 (COD)
– Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Proposal for a Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, COM (2003) 427 final 2003/0168 (COD), 2004/C 241/01
– European Parliament Committee on Legal Aff airs, Report on the proposal for a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the law applicable to non-contractual obligations (“Rome II”) (COM(2003)0427–C5 0338/2003–2003/0168(COD)), A6–0211/2005
– Amended Proposal for a European Parliament and Council Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, COM 2006 83 final
– European Parliament Recommendation for Second Reading on the Council common position for adopting a regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, 9751/7/2006–C6–0317/2006–2003/0168(COD)
– Joint text approved by the Conciliation Committee of a Regulation on the Law Applicable to Non-Contractual Obligations, 2003/0168(COD) C6–0142/2007 PE-CONS3619/07

 

 

Divortul si cetateniile. Europene sau de drept international privat?

Juliane Kokott a depus Concluziile in cauza C-168/08 (Hadadi)  intrebare preliminara privind interpretarea Regulamentului nr. 2201/2003 privind competenta, recunoasterea si executarea hotărârilor judecătoresti în materie matrimonială si în materia răspunderii părintesti, de abrogare a Regulamentului (CE) nr. 1347/2000 {RO}.

 

Articol. Aplicarea ex officio a dreptului comunicar de catre instantele nationale in cauzele privind impozitele si taxele

J. J. van Dam, J. A. R. van Eijsden, Ex officio Application of EC Law by National Courts of Law in Tax Cases, Discretionary Authority or an Obligation?, EC Tax Review,  2009, Vol. 18, Iss. 1.Abstract

In the absence of Community procedural rules, it is for the domestic legal system of each Member State to designate the courts having jurisdiction and to lay down the detailed procedural rules governing actions for safeguarding rights which are derived from the direct effect of EC law. The European Court of Justice has specified in its case law how the general Community testing framework for domestic procedural rules should be applied in case of ex officio application of EC law. The principle of equivalence requires that the national courts must of their own motion raise claims based on Community law, if they are authorized or required to do so with arguments based on domestic law. A domestic limitation for the national courts of law to apply law of its own motion does have an adverse impact on the effectiveness of Community law. However, the principle of effectiveness in principle does not require a national court to apply EC law ex officio if the national court is under the domestic rules not authorized to do so, insofar this limitation to apply law of its own motion is justified by principles of the domestic judicial system.

Gerner-Beuerle, Schillig: The Mysteries of Freedom of Establishment after Cartesio

C-185/07, Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta e.a: Conventia de arbitraj si Regulamentul nr. 44/2001

 

Hotararea din 10.02.2009, Riunione Adriatica Di Sicurta e.a, C.J.C.E., C-185/07


Pronuntarea, de către o instantă dintr‑un stat membru, a unei somatii prin care se interzice unei persoane să initieze sau să continue o procedură într‑un alt stat membru, pentru motivul că o asemenea procedură ar fi contrară unei conventii de arbitraj, este incompatibilă cu Regulamentul (CE) nr. 44/2001 al Consiliului din 22 decembrie 2000 privind competenta judiciară, recunoasterea si executarea hotărârilor în materie civilă si comercială.

Regatul Unit. Raspunsurile la consultarea privind participarea la Regulamentul „Roma I”

Relatam anterior asupra intentiei de participare a Regatului la regulamentul in cauza, ceea ce intre timp s-a si produs. Pe de alta parte, raspunsurile la consultare – Rome I – Should the UK Opt In? – se pot citi aici.

CJCE + drept international privat = C‑353/06, Grunkin

Ecuatia pare simpla, insa nu este. Si, desigur, exista si precedente jurisprudentiale. Numai ca acum a fost in cauza aceasta ramura de drept, denumita „drept international privat”; sa se confirme ceea ce afirma unii ca aceasta ramura este pe cale de a se transforma intr-o „ramurica”?

Asadar,

„Dreptul de liberă circulație și de ședere pe teritoriul statelor membre – Dreptul internațional privat în materia numelui de familie − Stabilirea legii aplicabile exclusiv prin raportare la cetățenie − Copil minor care s‑a născut și locuiește într‑un stat membru și are cetățenia unui alt stat membru – Nerecunoașterea în statul membru al cărui resortisant este a numelui dobândit în statul membru în care s‑a născut și locuiește”

C‑353/06, Stefan Grunkin

RO.

Ringe: Forum Shopping Under the EU Insolvency Regulation

Wolf-Georg Ringe, Forum Shopping Under the EU Insolvency Regulation, August 1, 2008, Oxford Legal Studies Research Paper No. 33/2008. Available at SSRN.
Abstract:
Cross-border forum shopping for the benefit of a different insolvency law regime has become popular within the European Union in recent years. Yet legislators, courts and legal scholarship react with suspicion when debtors cross the border only to profit from a different insolvency law system. The most prominent legal tool, the European Insolvency Regulation, is based on the assumption that forum shopping is bad for the functioning of the European Internal Market.

This paper questions the hostile attitude towards the phenomenon of forum shopping. It is argued that forum shopping can have beneficial effects both for the company and for its creditors, and that strong safeguards for creditors who oppose the migration are in place. Furthermore, the validity of the COMI approach of the Regulation under the fundamental freedoms of the Treaty is questioned; it is suggested that the current regime needs to be amended. The proposed new system would enable more corporate mobility within the European Union and create more legal certainty for all constituencies at the same time.

Franta. Autoritatea fiscala recunoaste (in scop fiscal) casatoria intre doi barbati (cetateni) olandezi. Pentru impozitarea comuna

Bine, bine, vine acum intrebarea: pe cand se va recunoaste, in aceleasi scopuri fiscale (si pentru a nu constitui un obstacol asupra liberei circulatii a persoanelor, daca UE s-ar „largi” (sic), cum se exprima inca unii (adica „extinde”), pana la granite nebanuite…) sa zicem o familie poligama (barbat + pana la 4 femei, ca in dreptul islamic aplicabil, desigur in afara CE, inca in diverse state ale lumii). Ori vreo alta forma de familie post-moderna?

Lasand gluma la o parte, problema este de interes si, probabil, ca mai devreme sau mai tarziu aceasta problema se va generaliza. Pentru ca, in legislatia franceza (precum veti citi in cele ce urmeaza exista asa-numitele „pacte civile de solidaritate” – PAC(S) aplicabile si oamenilor/persoanelor sau indivizilor avand acelasi sex). Si apoi ar trebui facuta trimitere si la hotararea CJCE Tadao Maruko (pentru problema examinarii egalitatii de tratament, dispusa prin dreptul intern al unui stat membru).

In sfarsit, se poate afirma ca a fost creat un precedent.

Asadar, stirea din Le Monde:

Ils s’appellent Peter-Jan et Aad, sont néerlandais et vivent paisiblement dans une maison du Gers, avec une chambre d’hôtes. Les deux hommes se sont mariés à Leyde, en 2002, les Pays-Bas reconnaissant depuis plusieurs années l’union homosexuelle.

En déposant leur première déclaration de revenus française en 2005, ils ont revendiqué une imposition commune. Premier refus de l’administration, invoquant la loi française qui ne reconnaît pas la validité d’un mariage entre personnes du même sexe. Aidés d’un avocat parisien, Me Alain Leclerc, les deux Néerlandais ont alors réclamé l’application de conventions signées par la France et des règles du droit international privé.

L’affaire a, apparemment, été mûrement réfléchie à Bercy et au-delà. Les autorités françaises entendaient respecter les principes juridiques sans donner l’impression que, d’une manière ou d’une autre, elles validaient un mariage entre homosexuels. Parallèlement, deux parlementaires – le député Thierry Mariani (UMP) et le sénateur Jean-Louis Masson (non-inscrit) – s’enquéraient de la position du garde des sceaux. Dominique Perben leur répondit, à l’époque, que le droit français pourrait admettre la réalité d’un mariage homosexuel si le pays où il avait été célébré reconnaissait sa validité.

Le 11 juillet, le service juridique de la fiscalité au ministère des finances a fait savoir aux intéressés que leur mariage devait être considéré comme valable. Pour l’avocat du couple, la décision de Bercy signifie leur alignement complet sur le statut fiscal d’un couple marié et non sur celui, plus restrictif, des couples pacsés. „Une situation tout à fait normale au regard du droit”, souligne Me Leclerc. Peter-Jan et Aad peuvent donc bénéficier d’une imposition commune. A la seule condition de faire traduire leur acte de mariage en français…

Ce précédent ne permettra pas à un couple d’homosexuels français de se marier. Mais ceux venus de Belgique, des Pays-Bas ou d’Espagne – trois pays où le mariage homosexuel est légal – pourront profiter de cette jurisprudence. Ils seraient plusieurs à avoir déjà pris la plume pour s’adresser à leur contrôleur.

Cooperare consolidata intre 9 state membre in materia regulilor privind normele aplicabile divortului

Printre care si Romania. Din EUObserver.

Free Choice in International Company Insolvency Law in Europe,

Horst Eidenmüller, Free Choice in International Company Insolvency Law in Europe, European Business Organization Law Review. Cambridge: Sep 2005. Vol. 6, Iss. 3; p. 423 [EBOR, SSRN, ProQuest]

Within the European Union, firms are now free under Articles 43 and 48 EC to choose a corporate form of their liking, regardless of the actual head office (real seat) of the company. However, they are not free to choose the applicable bankruptcy regime. Under Article 3(1), first sentence, of the European Insolvency Regulation (EIR), jurisdiction for main insolvency proceedings lies with the courts of the Member State in which the debtor has the centre of its main interests (COMI). The COMI standard is fuzzy and allows last-minute forum shopping by the management/shareholders of a distressed debtor, to the detriment, especially, of creditors who cannot (easily) adapt. Given the poor performance of the COMI standard, it seems worthwhile to explore the merits of an alternative approach that gives more room to freedom of choice in international company insolvency law in Europe. Various models of free choice are discussed: free choice of the applicable insolvency law, free choice of the applicable insolvency law insofar as it contains substantive – as opposed to procedural – provisions, free choice of the bankruptcy forum (‘unconstrained forum choice’) and free choice of the bankruptcy forum in combination with the company law applicable to a company (‘constrained forum choice’). This article shows that, on efficiency grounds, the last model is to be preferred. It would improve matters compared to the status quo, and it would also be easy to implement in practice by changing the wording of Article 3 EIR. Even though this solution is preferable as a policy option, it is not mandated by Articles 43 and 48 EC. However, these treaty provisions do not mandate the COMI standard either. European legislation is thus free to effect the desirable changes to the EIR.